×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Marijuana Growers Use Wild Bears to Guard Pot

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the stuck-in-the-honey-pot dept.

Canada 75

Two Canadian marijuana growers were using at least 14 wild black bears to guard their crops. The pair had lured the bears onto their property with dog food in an attempt to deter thieves. Fortunately for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police pot bears turn out to be pretty chill. "They were tame, they just sat around watching... at one point one of the bears climbed onto the hood of a police car, sat there for a bit and then jumped off," said RCMP Sergeant Fred Mansveld.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

75 comments

Damn RCMP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33302908)

The bear that climbed onto the hood of a police car was waiting for the bag of Cheetos. A bag never showed up so he jumped off.

Ah, nice. (4, Insightful)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 3 years ago | (#33312202)

So, a few guys are just growing pot, smoking and selling all day, they take animals for their protection, the animals are treated well, they are well fed, and neither the animals nor the people are a danger to anyone.

So, the cops come in, put the guys in jail, burn the crops, and murder the animals. And we are somehow supposed to think that the cops are the good guys?

Re:Ah, nice. (2, Insightful)

dbreeze (228599) | more than 3 years ago | (#33312354)

I believe the vast majority of law enforcement workers just wish the public would vote in legislators who would create more reasonable laws for them to enforce. Very few want to ruin lives over relatively victim-less crimes.

Re:Ah, nice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33315464)

In which case they need to make a stand or get a proper fucking job.

Re:Ah, nice. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33324392)

Going from cop to prostitute, you're asking a lot.

Re:Ah, nice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33325108)

If a requirement for being a police officer was agreeing 100% with every single law, we probably wouldn't have very many cops.

Re:Ah, nice. (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33328048)

If a requirement for being a police officer was agreeing 100% with every single law, we probably wouldn't have very many cops.

I think that was part of the point: the legislators would have to revise the laws to make them more attractive to principled law enforcement officers.

Re:Ah, nice. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33340316)

You make it sound like they have no choice but to enforce bad laws.

If they didn’t act like complete and utter tools while they hold you over the coals and explain what they can do (based on the law) and implying that they will relax their enforcement a little bit (if you play their game), I’d be more inclined to agree with you.

They already selectively enforce the law, and a bad law is just another law to selectively enforce... except, a bad one that you probably did break, which makes it easier for them to charge you with it. (Not to mention that you won’t get a fair trial most of the time, unless you hire a really good lawyer, i.e. an expensive one.)

A lot of cops are bullies and it’s in their best interest to have something they can trump up to charge you with, all the better if you broke a real law that some stupid legislators dreamt up. You think people go into law enforcement because they want to make the world rosy? They go into law enforcement because they are so bad-ass and/or they get off on bullying people.

Re:Ah, nice. (1)

Fizzl (209397) | more than 3 years ago | (#33340812)

You make it sound like they have no choice but to enforce bad laws.

Must.... Restis.... Godwins...

Re:Ah, nice. (1)

Baki (72515) | more than 3 years ago | (#33382124)

If only this were so.

Most law enforcement people, at least the leadership, keep opposing legalization initiatives almost everywhere.
Obviously, they fear for budget cuts when this senseless victim-less "crimes" would no longer be an easy target for them.

Re:Ah, nice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33420100)

budget cuts is right. You know how much cash a big drug bust can net? A couple helicopters, guns, and a whole case of tasers, bro.

Re:Ah, nice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33314228)

So, the cops come in, put the guys in jail, burn the crops, and murder the animals. And we are somehow supposed to think that the cops are the good guys?

Because your elected leaders said so, now shut up and sit down! ohh and drink a couple of beer.

Re:Ah, nice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33315636)

Please! someone mod parent up!

(hahah captcha is 'liberty' ffs)

Re:Ah, nice. (4, Interesting)

boxwood (1742976) | more than 3 years ago | (#33317438)

Nah they don't often put the pot growers in jail here. Unless the grower happens to be in the field when the cops come around or there is a clear path to the growers house (or in one case the grower has a water hose going from his house to the field, lol) they can't really prove who planted the pot. Unless its obvious, they make little effort to track down grower, though if rumours are to believed, this may change soon.

In canada they mostly just put the gps coordinates of the pot fields in a database, then raid them all just before harvest time. This way the grower spent all season tending the plants but has nothing to show for it at the end.

This is why these guys got the bears there. They can protect their fields without actually being there in person very often.

Really the whole thing is stupid. How much canadian taxpayer money is being spent to destroy pot fields, when the majority of canadians want it legalised? And why don't we legalise it? Blame AMERICA.

Re:Ah, nice. (2, Informative)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 3 years ago | (#33317844)

Actually, don't blame America, blame the United States of America. America is a beautiful continent, and all Canadians are as American as all Peruvians and all Cubans, and America had nothing to do with this.

The culprit is the USA, and it's stupid policies, including the way they put their nose in other countries affairs.

Re:Ah, nice. (1)

gabebear (251933) | more than 3 years ago | (#33319776)

WTF?


The USA may have some crap to answer for... but drug policy in your own country is your own fault. What a bunch of crybabies.


The USA is closer then ever to allowing small amounts of pot for recreational use since pot was Federally banned in the 1970s (The DEA isn't going after people who use pot legally under state law now). Canada is closer than ever to imposing mandatory jail time for a single plant since banning pot in the 1920s... The countries are headed in opposite directions.

Re:Ah, nice. (3, Informative)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 3 years ago | (#33325816)

You obviously haven't been paying to international politics recently. Extension of US laws (aka: "harmonisation" or "bringing laws in sync", esp. copyright and drug law) to other countries is part and parcel of negotiations. Often times a country will decide that access to the US as a market for their exports outweighs the consequences of taking onboard more egregious aspects of the US body of law.

Re:Ah, nice. (0)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 3 years ago | (#33327094)

You obviously haven't been paying to international politics recently. Extension of US laws (aka: "harmonisation" or "bringing laws in sync", esp. copyright and drug law) to other countries is part and parcel of negotiations. Often times a country will decide that access to the US as a market for their exports outweighs the consequences of taking onboard more egregious aspects of the US body of law.

Well I guess you're not voting in the right leaders then... Canadians are responsible for Canada just as US Citizens are for the US. We may not have the democracy we attempt to have, but its our permission and negligence that holds us responsible for our countries. In the end, you will feel that responsibility whether you like it or not; your fellows are going to jail for senseless reasons in this case, etc etc etc.

Hope for the best, lol.

Re:Ah, nice. (1)

gabebear (251933) | more than 3 years ago | (#33327568)

You obviously haven't been paying to international politics recently. Extension of US laws (aka: "harmonisation" or "bringing laws in sync", esp. copyright and drug law) to other countries is part and parcel of negotiations. Often times a country will decide that access to the US as a market for their exports outweighs the consequences of taking onboard more egregious aspects of the US body of law.

What the hell are you smoking.......

Can you point to a single case of the US trying to harmonise criminal drug law with another country(much less Canada)? The Canadians may want a 1980's US-style "war on drugs", but nobody is pushing them into it...

If you are talking about countries going overboard on patent/trademark/copyright harmonisation, then the US is part of the problem, but FAR FAR from THE country to blame.

Re:Ah, nice. (1)

gamricstone (1879210) | more than 3 years ago | (#33328282)

If the US is not to blame for said issues, please name the country(s) you are referring to who are responsible.

Also can you provide a cite for anything suggesting Canadians may want a "1980s style US 'war on drugs'"?

Re:Ah, nice. (3, Insightful)

boxwood (1742976) | more than 3 years ago | (#33329280)

anytime the legalise pot discussion comes up, the US ambassador to Canada starts making threats of trade sanctions. Since canada does more than 90% of its trade with the US, these sanctions would put us into a recession.

So yeah, pot is illegal in Canada entirely because of the US. Its like this in most countries.

Re:Ah, nice. (1)

gabebear (251933) | more than 3 years ago | (#33332524)

anytime the legalise pot discussion comes up, the US ambassador to Canada starts making threats of trade sanctions. Since canada does more than 90% of its trade with the US, these sanctions would put us into a recession.

Oh ya... I forgot about the USA imposing all those trade sanctions against Canada all the time... Can you point to a time when a threat like this actually happened?

So yeah, pot is illegal in Canada entirely because of the US. Its like this in most countries.

Canadians made pot illegal in the 1920s(along with opium), LONG LONG before it was illegal in the USA.

Re:Ah, nice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33365874)

Gabe, you must be smoking some right now to believe that Americanized brainwash.

So Canada started the 'War on Drugs' did we??

Re:Ah, nice. (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 3 years ago | (#33392526)

What are we exporting to Canada that is so damn important that we have you by the short & curlies? Shitty movies & music? Fords & Chevys?

Take some responsibility for your own damn situation & stop crying about how the USA makes you pass bad laws. You sound like an abused wife.

Re:Ah, nice. (1)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | more than 3 years ago | (#33429972)

So yeah, pot is illegal in Canada entirely because of the US. Its like this in most countries.

I would say it's entirely Canada's fault for not being able to be self-sufficient, and electing leaders who negotiate your trade agreements. If Canada hates our policy so much, don't trade with the US. We're not forcing Canada to trade with us. Elect leaders who will do what the people want, and stop complaining that it's someone else's fault.

Re:Ah, nice. (1)

xgr3gx (1068984) | more than 3 years ago | (#33435274)

Just freakin' legalize pot already, and prostitution too. They have been around for thousands of years, and are never going away.
I have no interest in either, but I still think they should be legal.
Regulate it, tax it, reduce crime, generate tax revenue. The end.
How is it ok that people can get all liquored up start fights and crash cars, but it's not ok for someone to smoke up, eat junk food, and watch cartoons? BAH!

Re:Ah, nice. (0, Troll)

gabebear (251933) | more than 3 years ago | (#33332498)

If the US is not to blame for said issues, please name the country(s) you are referring to who are responsible.

How about you take some fucking personal responsibility? Your government and laws are your problem.

Also can you provide a cite for anything suggesting Canadians may want a "1980s style US 'war on drugs'"?

Are you suggesting that Canadians aren't passing laws aimed at doing just that?

Re:Ah, nice. (1)

gamricstone (1879210) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335268)

Um I'm not Canadian mister, and I believe we're talking about Canada here. Also I refuse to take any personal responsibility for the US laws, because by the time I personally was born, they were all(the ones that matter) established. It isn't like I have any choice whatsoever in the direction of my government. Sure can vote in politicians, but I can't change the viewpoints of millions of Americans who don't care about politics, or the ones who DO but disagree with me.

So sir, how about YOU take some "fucking personal responsibility" and stop posting like a troll. You didn't answer either of my questions, you didn't even state your point of view or point out where I am wrong, you're just a troll.

Re:Ah, nice. (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 3 years ago | (#33341330)

So you take no responsibility for the country you are arguing about and none for the one in which you are a citizen.

Why am I not surprised.

Sadly there are many things about my country with which I am currently unhappy about. Unless I stand up against them with all I have then I am responsible for them.

Re:Ah, nice. (4, Informative)

DirtyCanuck (1529753) | more than 3 years ago | (#33347496)

Are you lost sir?

The United States has the DEA enforcing it's domestic drug policy throughout the world.

Here in Canada:
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/articles/3261.html [cannabisculture.com]

Abroad, Cocaine is tolerated and seen as a great resource in South America yet America is killing civilians to thwart a domestic problem?????? A problem that stems from lack of Education, Health care and Poverty

Missionary plane shot down in Peru: collateral damage in US "drug war
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/apr2001/peru-a24.shtml [wsws.org]
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ciadrugs/peru_coverup.html [fromthewilderness.com]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/04/video-of-missionaries-bei_n_449074.html [huffingtonpost.com]

DEA agents shoot innocent 14-year-old girl in the head, but deny any wrongdoing.
http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/2998.html [cannabisculture.com]

http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/license-to-kill.html [isil.org]

DEA GO AWAY!!!
http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/drug-war-victim/ [drugwarrant.com]

Lets not forget Marc Emery a Canadian politician extradited because of his influence on the pro marijuana movement. He was extradited for selling seeds (which is legal in Canada) via mail to the U.S. unprecedented enforcement of American pollution on Canadian Sovereignty.

Cocaine Is Poison (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 3 years ago | (#33418082)

Abroad, Cocaine is tolerated and seen as a great resource in South America yet America is killing civilians to thwart a domestic problem??????

America's Drug War is a criminal enterprise that only makes any drug problems worse. But that's not because cocaine is "a great resource" to an except drug gangs and a very few doctors/researchers. Cocaine is "tolerated" in countries whose part of the global Drug War scam is to produce drugs, so their bigshot drug ganglords protect the local circulation.

Cocaine is toxic, highly addictive, and causes all kinds of major health problems. Not just damaging brain tissue, livers, kidneys, hearts, vascular systems and other major organs on a large scale, but causing acute psychosis both in the short term and chronically.

Cocaine abuse is a major public health problem, even if the Drug War response makes the problems worse instead of fixing them. Sure, some people could use cocaine a little without abusing it, but very few do. Cocaine addiction reduces people to hurting friends, family an strangers alike, not just through violence and theft to support the high prices, but in abberant behavior directly caused by the drug. Cocaine is worse than alcohol, which is itself a dangerous toxin that causes a lot more harm that we should tolerate.

None of this justifies the Drug War. People with drug problems need medical help, usually psychological or social therapy to fix the underlying problem leading them to abuse the drugs. But that doesn't mean a dangerous drug like cocaine should be merely "tolerated" as a dangerous resource. It should be available only to adults from licensed dealers, and prohibited to anyone in a central registry checked at purchase time and generated by doctors or judges. Anyone attempting a second time to buy after being rejected once for being blacklisted should be required to attend counseling to determine why they're backsliding.

Cocaine and other addictive drugs that make people aggressive must be controlled by the state. Because its effects damage or destroy the user's natural ability to self control. Some people can handle it, but the system has to deal with those who can't. A rational system like what I describe would protect those of us who can deal with it, but also protect us from those who can't.

Re:Ah, nice. (1)

Baki (72515) | more than 3 years ago | (#33382188)

One can only hope that the USA goes down economically so deep, that they can no longer bully the world to adopt their laws.
At the moment the USA threatens with economic sactions and/or military action.

Once the USA is bankrupt, they cannot afford either anymore.

Re:Ah, nice. (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#33383954)

That would be awesome for the US citizens.

Re:Ah, nice. (1)

marxmarv (30295) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388472)

Who are, by and large, only ever out in the streets for the bread-and-circuses.

Re:Ah, nice. (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388542)

It certainly is hard to get by as a US citizen if you don't come from money. Clever. In one sentence you made several points. The US really is like the Roman Empire. Once wealth gets concentrated in a few hands the system will inevitably fail. Im as much of a Communist as the US is Capitalist (i.e. a little bit).

Re:Ah, nice. (1)

marxmarv (30295) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388502)

Sadly, the MOTU have decided that the general welfare is less important than the specific welfare of the rich. So instead of something like Japan circa 1945, expect something more like Italy circa 1935 (effectively, the US Council of Corporations -- er, Chamber of Commerce -- already runs the place), or if we're really unlucky, Brazil circa 1985.

When in the USA, act as the romans do... (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434838)

Just like ancient Rome, the USA has a far-too-big army that has to be kept busy. So they will bully and keep on bullying, because they need to do so. And therefore they bully even international justice, their own allies, the world-wide environment, well, basically anything.

Re:Ah, nice. (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388580)

Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them

Scientists also develop the majority of the theories the engineer uses to "fix" the problem. Without Engineers, Scientists are too abstract for practical efforts. Without Scientists, Engineers lack many of the tools necessary for their trade.

Re:Ah, nice. (1)

Woefdram (143784) | more than 3 years ago | (#33426470)

Why not legalise it indeed? It's unhealthy, absolutely. But so is alcohol, tobacco, unsafe sex and watching South Park and you can legally do that. Government will decide what's good for you, not you. Even here in the Netherlands it's officially illegal (although the world seems to think otherwise). Let's hope our next government will wake up to reality and finally legalise it.

Re:Ah, nice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33319664)

I wonder what happened to the raccoon. :(

Re:Ah, nice. (1)

PetoskeyGuy (648788) | more than 3 years ago | (#33325084)

The animals may have been fed, but that's not really treating them well. Training bears that people are good sources of food is dangerous. Eventually they will seek out camp sites, homes or businesses and hurt someone or get killed themselves. Once they start depending on humans for food it's a slow form of starvation and when food gets scarce the bears get violent. They won't get enough to survive the winter.

No one got hurt, but bears can always be dangerous.

Some cops are assholes but in general they are good guys. People don't like them because they enforce the rules we ask them to and you usually only see them when you break the rules.

Re:Ah, nice. (-1, Flamebait)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 3 years ago | (#33325358)

I agree about the bears. Same thing about dogs, but nobody complains that you have pet dogs, because it's implied that you'll keep feeding them. If you abandon your pets, that's animal cruelty and a whole different crime in and on itself. The reason this guys can't feed the bears anymore is because they are being dishonestly prosecuted for doing something that should be perfectly legal.

On the other hand, all cops are jerks. Why do you think they became cops in the first place? Same thing with the army. People become cops/marines because they are jerks, because they are murderers, and because they want power/a gun. Don't come to me with the 'college money' bullshit excuse. If you want college money, do as Stanhope suggests, and suck a dick. You get college money and you never even have to abandon west Virginia.

They are jerks that need power, and have an urge to murder, so they make a deal with a different kind of jerk: the right wing motherfuckers that want to control the population so that they can keep going to the bank.

There is no other plausible explanation. This is what is actually going on. Sure, they'll say they want to 'help the community', and that they want to 'serve their country'. Bullshit, they are just worried about the size of their dicks, so they need to make it up with a big gun and a license to kill.

Re:Ah, nice. (-1, Redundant)

Fizzl (209397) | more than 3 years ago | (#33341272)

Mod parent up.
And the troll modder can go suck a dick or die in a fire. (...to get college money)

Re:Ah, nice. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33344654)

If he hadn’t suggested that people who need money should become homosexual prostitutes instead of going into the police/military force, he might have avoided the negative mods. Just a thought.

Re:Ah, nice. (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 3 years ago | (#33341404)

I hate to double reply but ....Fuck!

How long do you think your pussy loud mouthed ass would survive without police and military around to protect your ability to spew such stupid shit?

I have to say in a world with no law you would have a few problems saying that shit near me.

Re:Ah, nice. (2, Informative)

PetoskeyGuy (648788) | more than 3 years ago | (#33342172)

Honestly. Do you really believe what you just wrote?

People are people. As soon as you start saying every kind of person with a certain job or nationality is something you stop thinking and start dehumanizing.

Are all stoners whiney spoiled and lazy semi-libertarians who like to talk about their ultimate personal rights but only the part that would let them smoke weed all day, not the part that prevents highways, selling yourself into slavery and common land from existing or people polluting and dumping toxic waste in their backyard? I don't know. The vocal ones seem to be that way but I know some people just have a joint and lead normal lives. A few do it because cancer sucks.

You seem like the ignorant All-Or-Nothing type fighting against "The Man" by wearing a dent in the couch.

Could be wrong about you, just a guess. People are just people. You don't present yourself well in this comment and I haven't bother to look up any others.

Think for real before you type.

Re:Ah, nice. (1)

MZeora (1707054) | more than 3 years ago | (#33365628)

I fully understand that some of the more vocal potheads are idiots. Fully get that.
I do happen to be for the legalization (not decriminalization, but legalization) and taxation of Hemp for smoking purposes.
Cigs are obviously Harmful and Liquor and do damage to it's drinker if not careful in many ways. I'm not saying either of theses should be abolished, but that Hemp should be in that line with them

The Legitimate Science to the effects of Hemp Smoking have come out in FAVOR of utilizing Hemp for Medical - and in the more laid-back scientist minds - Recreational.
Yes, their is a chance of addiction - but it's about 9% verses the 90% to 100% chances on other drugs that are legal - but I digress.

If you wish you can always read over some Essays by Scientists and others who have smoked pot and haven't become utter failures. http://marijuana-uses.com/mr-x/ [marijuana-uses.com] This in particualar is by the late, great Carl Sagan.

it's Ok if you don't agree, but at least know why you don't agree.

Re:Ah, nice. (0)

0111 1110 (518466) | more than 3 years ago | (#33367306)

I don't think all soldiers are jerks who just want a chance to shoot at and intimidate people, but that is not true for cops. Pretty much all of them are like that. Cops are evil through and through. The police are the only reason that police states can become police states.

Re:Ah, nice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33327480)

Feeding wild animals is dangerous. Not for you as long as you have food. But for other people who don't have food or are unwilling to give it to the . You see wild animals when hunger will see other people think they can get free food from them and get violent when that free food is not available.

Re:Ah, nice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33345956)

No, the people that fed the bears fucked them over. What will most likely happen now is these bears will try to get to other people to get food. These people will freak out, bears will not be happy and demand food. Then people kill the bears because they came to get food, broke in to houses, etc. etc. etc.

Feeding bears ends up killing them because it modifies their behaviour. The default behaviour of bears is to not go to where people are. There are many, many cases where bears just wander through some area, pick on some garbage and leave. No one kills those bears. It is the problem when people start to put food out for the bears. People like this should really be charged with causing the death of these animals.

Re:Ah, nice. (2, Informative)

sribe (304414) | more than 3 years ago | (#33349058)

...and neither the animals nor the people are a danger to anyone.

I take you don't know much about bears. Bears that become accustomed to people are very dangerous.

Re:Ah, nice. (1)

fishexe (168879) | more than 3 years ago | (#33365218)

...and neither the animals nor the people are a danger to anyone.

I take you don't know much about bears. Bears that become accustomed to people are very dangerous.

As demonstrated [colbertnation.com] repeatedly [colbertnation.com] on the Threatdown [colbertnation.com] .

Re:Ah, nice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33350622)

To be fair, the article never actually says these specific bears were killed, it only insinuates that they were. This may actually be a crafty piece of reporting.

Re:Ah, nice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33365080)

Uhhh...I'm not seeing the part in the article where it says the cops killed the bears...

Re:Ah, nice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33408044)

Story doesn't say that the bears were killed. In Canada they kill nuisance bears... ones that have been fed in a residential setting and then come back for more. These bears are out in a remote area. Why didn't they work as guard bears? The growers forgot that bears are omnivorous. As the plants mature, those nice, resinous flower buds are actually a concentrated food source. Bet those bears had eaten every bud that was ready. Watch them feed in the wild. Late season, berries and flower buds are a prime part of their natural diet to pack on weight for hibernation. These were probably some of the most mellowed out bears.

Re:Ah, nice. (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#33414536)

If the bears are too tame to properly fear humans then they are a danger to society.

My guess however is that the bears were just stoned.

Re:Ah, nice. (1)

elkstoy (930915) | more than 3 years ago | (#33425132)

In concept, I tend to agree with you that pot is relatively harmless and selling it is no different than running a liquor store. But, agree or not, the law is the law and unfortunately people that frequently smoke pot are too mellow to dive in and do what it takes to change it. Therefore you can't blame the cops here. And about the bears...This is very sad, but the wildlife professionals are correct here. Bears and humans do not mix without training on both sides. I don't want my kid killed by a bear thinking his sandwich is a handout. Most folks would shrug this off, but you are correct, this is a terrible tragedy.

Best Guards Ever (2, Funny)

T.E.D. (34228) | more than 3 years ago | (#33312372)

What better guards could you have than Grizzly bears with the munchies?

Re:Best Guards Ever (2, Informative)

snowraver1 (1052510) | more than 3 years ago | (#33315494)

They were black bears, which are smaller and less agressive. A black bear can climb a tree though, were a brown (grizzly) cannot.

Re:Best Guards Ever (2, Funny)

Megahard (1053072) | more than 3 years ago | (#33333482)

To tell the difference between a black bear and a grizzly, kick it in the butt and climb a tree. If the bear climbs the tree and eats you, it's a black bear. If it knocks down the tree and eats you, it's a grizzly.

Re:Best Guards Ever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33355746)

Black bears are way more skittish and generally avoid people. Until you teach them that people feed them. Then they become skittish black bears who don't get spooked until you're in the "fight" part of the "fight or flight" reaction. Pot farmers are industrious... but stupid.

Royal Canadian Mounted Geese? (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#33324750)

at one point one of the bears climbed onto the hood of a police car,

I thought that the Mounties ride around on horses, and not in police cars?

TFA fails to mention if the bear took a dump on the police car. Being that the bears were doomed to being shot, that's probably what I would have done. That must kinda really suck to be a bear: "Ok, these pinky creatures are feeding me crap out of cans, that they would never fathom to eat themselves, I am being gentle with them. And then the cops show up and shoot me.

Although, the last time that I was in Banff, Canada, our travel guide reminded us on how to deal with the wild critters:

"A moose in the rut is no Bambi. It's a bad-assed mother-fucker, who didn't get laid, and has a set of horns with your name on it."

Human fed bears are dead bears. What a stupid stup (3, Interesting)

SpectateSwamp (904617) | more than 3 years ago | (#33326104)

Many years ago I worked on a forestry bridge crew. The camp cook made 6 or 8 pies a day. There were only 4 of us on the crew. He would put all the extra food in 5 gal buckets to feed his bears.

One day his favorite old black bear got in a big fight with a 4 or 5 year old Grizzly. Old Irish waded into the battle with a broom to break it up. Irish got a couple broken ribs from his fav bear.

Now if the FishCops had a guy like Irish working for them, he would build a trail of pies deeper and deeper into the bush to save those bears. But not so with the highly educated game wardens of today; their answer is to shoot them. Anything that takes away from their budget for jetboats atv's and the latest fancy truck is dealt with that way.

A similar story (from 5 or 6 years back) was the killing of 8 or 10 Moose (some with calfs) that wandered into town during a winter with more than usual snow. A couple cowboys with ropes and a large pen with a few bails would have saved those animals but NO a bullet is better and the FishCops know "best". That year a bullet ended up in a balcony after it passed through or missed the moose. They then started shooting them with marbles until they got the poor animal in a less public place to kill them. Most of these university trained biology students are afraid of wildlife. These guys and gals are chicken shit, scared what ever you want to call them. Protectors of wildlife they are not.

This issue is bound to be made in to a reality show. So beware FC's you will be demonized if you kill all these animals.

Maybe get a couple of those bear dogs to put the run on them if you can't find a pie man to lead them away to safety. Wildlife officials don't care about the wildlife if their answers are always Shoot Shoot.

My trapper friends would do a better job. They released cougar and wolf from their snares by putting a blanket over them then slipping their hand under to cut the cord with snips. These guys are brave. The cougar was a protected species and the wolf had hair rubbed off its back and was worthless. Boo FishCops boo.

Re:Human fed bears are dead bears. What a stupid s (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33337288)

Boo FishCops boo.

Reading your post was like reading A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man in reverse.

Re:Human fed bears are dead bears. What a stupid s (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33340180)

I.e. your circumstantial, incomplete “study” of wildlife is more valid than the decades of study which has built up the theory that once a bear knows that humans have food, it tends to become more aggressive in seeking out humans so it can get fed, which is not a good thing because no matter how tame they’ve become wild bears still don’t mix very nicely with humans. Plus the tamer they become the worse they mix with other wild bears.

Thumbs-up for your excellent idea, though. A trail of pies leading into the woods. Yup, that’s bound to work. Not to mention that bears can smell food from miles away... stellar job, sir.

Re:Human fed bears are dead bears. What a stupid s (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33401272)

You do know that the story didn't make any mention of them killing the bears, right? Just a note saying that people who feed bears make things worse for the bears, since then they're more willing to come into human areas and then get labeled a nuisance, in which case they then kill them.

There's no evidence the pot-grower's bears were harmed.

Maybe you should ReRTFA (1)

celtic_hackr (579828) | more than 3 years ago | (#33415626)

From the article

By feeding them, said Dave Webster, a conservation officer with the provincial government who launched an investigation of the case on Wednesday, the marijuana growers delivered "a death sentence for the wild animals."

Webster told AFP "tame" bears are dangerous, because once they're fed they commonly seek out other people, frequently destroy property, and in very rare cases attack or even kill people.

"If a bear is deemed to be a safety risk and is habituated to human food and not able to feed itself in the wild, it will be destroyed," he explained.

While they don't specifically say they killed the bears. That is clearly implied. The bears have been tamed, and thus now would be a safety risk, without they're pot growing owners to feed them anymore. It's possible they may be ok, but the whole death sentence quote leads me to believe otherwise.

Re:Human fed bears are dead bears. What a stupid s (1)

elkstoy (930915) | more than 3 years ago | (#33425190)

You are showing your ignorance here...Do you know the range of a bear? Even if you do take him 500+ mles away, he will only find the next human to look for a pie. I hope it's not your sweet little daughter sitting on the porch of your home away from home that has the pie. Or the scout group on their first camping trip and practicing their backwoods cooking skills. You have no idea what you are talking about here or the scope of of the situation.

Re:Human fed bears are dead bears. What a stupid s (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33433234)

If that's the way you deal with animals why not kill them all? You've clearly demonstrated that bears have no reason to exist in a human world and deserve extinction.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...