Gun used in suprise attack, suspect killed

[oneshooter]

Another use of a firearm to defend yourself.

http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/article_9f6b7326-78b7-11de-aab0-001cc4c002e0.html

Jerry Ruth saw the grizzly for just a fraction of a second before it was on him.

Within seconds, the 275-pound animal had crushed the Wyoming man's jaw when it bit him in the face, fractured his rib and punctured his lung and left deep bite wounds in his calf and scratches across his back.

After the attack, the bear left him for her three cubs that Ruth saw for the first time as he lay bleeding on the dirt. When it reached the cubs about 15 yards away, the bear turned toward him again, "squaring off" as if to charge, Ruth recalled Friday.

Ruth grabbed for the .41-caliber magnum revolver he was carrying in a hip holster and relied on his training and experience as a police officer to save his life. He fired three times, saving three bullets in case his first shots failed.

Iam sure that the attacker ment no harm.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[joeybee12]

1. Grizzly mothers attack when they feel threatened...

...and I'm sure this guy was probably not paying attention to his surroundings and probably in an area where he shouldn't have been...most state and national wildlife agencies are sure to not simply post warnings, but close off areas where grizzly moms and cubs are...tragic end to a beautiful creature, and I wonder what's going to happen to those cubs.

[gorfle]

4. Just like a lot of victims of crime.

I'm sure this guy was probably not paying attention to his surroundings and probably in an area where he shouldn't have been.

Interestingly, this is exactly why a lot of people end up victims of crime. So you want to congratulate him for being prepared by having the tools to deal with adversity or continue to blame him for not paying attention to his surroundings?

[iverglas]

8. congratulate him?

For killing a member of another species doing nothing but what instinct tells it to do to protect its offspring?

Hmm. If it had been a human being doing that ... I think we would have been congratulating the human being.

The human being, in this case, was obviously in the grizzly's dwelling, and so the grizzly didn't need to have any reasonable apprehension of death or serious bodily harm in order to use lethal force, right? In any event, if we take into account the grizzly's subjective perception of the situatin, as we must do in assessing a claim of self-defence, I'd say it had a pretty good case.

Whither the Law of Nature? Whither Natural Rights? Were they not what the grizzly was exercising, and was that not what entitled her to do so?

[gorfle]

12. Man vs. Beast.

Next time you are confronted by a wild animal, just give yourself to the Law of Nature.

We will all congratulate you.

[iverglas]

14. perhaps you missed something

Like: I'm never the one burbling about Laws of Nature and natural rights.

I just think that those who do should know what they're talking about, and adhere to what they say.


edit: what they're talking about

"Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued in 1754 that animals are part of natural law, and have natural rights, because they are sentient."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights

[gorfle]

15. I think you missed something.

I'm never the one burbling about Laws of Nature and natural rights.

That's for sure.

But even those of us who are are talking about the laws of nature and natural rights of man.

If I'm in the woods and I'm attacked by an animal for any reason I'm going to kill it with whatever I can. My natural rights trump any animal's.

[iverglas]

16. and isn't that just the problem with natural rights?

If I'm in the woods and I'm attacked by an animal for any reason I'm going to kill it with whatever I can. My natural rights trump any animal's.

Saying "natural rights" is about the same as saying

[gorfle]

18. There can be no further discussion.

From what you have written I can only conclude that you believe the man did not have the natural right to defend his life from the bear - your logic being that the bear's natural right of self-defense trumps man's.

When we do not agree that there is a basic, natural right to self-defense, irrespective of the rule of law, there can be no further discussion with you concerning firearms.

Firearms are simply the means for defense. If we can't even agree on the basis for the need or right for defense, what else can be said?

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

[iverglas]

19. no, really

From what you have written I can only conclude that you believe the man did not have the natural right to defend his life from the bear - your logic being that the bear's natural right of self-defense trumps man's.

The only thing you could actually have reasonably and honestly concluded from what I said is that natural rights don't exist.


When we do not agree that there is a basic, natural right to self-defense, irrespective of the rule of law, there can be no further discussion with you concerning firearms.

Where people don't speak sense, there can indeed be no discussion of much of anything.

And where people use terms they appear to have no understanding of ("irrespective of the rule of law" -- ???), well, ditto.


Firearms are simply the means for defense.

Were untruer words ever spoken?




"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Chevy Chase: Here with an editorial reply is Miss Emily Littella.

Emily Littella: What's all this fuss I keep hearing about violins on television? Why don't parents want their kids to see violins on television? I thought the Leonardo Bernstein concerts were just lovely, now, if they only show violins on television after ten o'clock at night, the little babies will all be asleep and they won't learn any music appreciation. They'll learn to play guitars, and bongo drums and go to Africa and join these rock'n roll outfits and they won't drink milk! I think there should be more violins on television and less game shows, it's terrible the way...

Chevy Chase: Um, Littella, that's Violence on television. Not violins.

Emily Littella: Oh, well that's different. Never mind!

Just happened to have it handy, and assumed it must be relevant to something here.

[gorfle]

21. Clearly, you have a fundamental disagreement.

The only thing you could actually have reasonably and honestly concluded from what I said is that natural rights don't exist.

My conclusion is completely reasonable and honest. In this forum you routinely advocate for the perpetrator and not the victim. This example is no different. Once again, you fault the man for killing the bear, and champion the bear for killing the man.

But thank you for reaffirming that you believe that natural rights don't exist.

Again, without a fundamental agreement on the fact that there is a natural right to self-defense, there can be no discussion with you on firearms.

Were untruer words ever spoken?

Again, this simply highlights the magnitude of disconnect between ourselves. Firearms are simply the means. It could be a club, a knife, or your bare hands. If we can't agree that there is a natural right to self-defense, discussion of the means is pointless.

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

[iverglas]

22. once again, you say whatever you think will serve your agenda

In this forum you routinely advocate for the perpetrator and not the victim.

Once again, you fault the man for killing the bear, and champion the bear for killing the man.

False, on both counts.

But what would I expect??

It wouldn't serve your agenda to say that I routinely object to people being killed or harmed in situations where doing so is contrary to human consensus on what is right and decent. Or that I faulted the man for being a moron and am entirely neutral on bears killing people, that just being what bears do when they perceive a threat to their lives or the lives of their offspring.



Firearms are simply the means.

How true, how true. But that IS NOT WHAT YOU SAID. What you said was:

Firearms are simply the means for defense.

Firearms are not simply the means for defence.

They are also the means for murder, suicide, robbery, intimidation ...


If we can't agree that there is a natural right to self-defense, discussion of the means is pointless.

If you'd like to acknowledge that there is a consensus of modern human societies that there is a RIGHT TO LIFE, who knows, when you spoke, you might make sense.

[gorfle]

24. Not false.

False, on both counts.

I'm not playing the "who me?" game with you anymore, iverglas. Your record speaks for you. I've been here for years now. I don't think I have ever once seen a case of self-defense presented where you said, "Wow, good job!" Instead, each case is presented with derision.

When absolutely pressed to it, you will admit than in some rare, certain cases people might have the right to defend themselves, but it is always a point must grudgingly given.

It is my personal belief that you have resentment issues with people who successfully defend themselves from assault, related to having been a victim of assault yourself.

It wouldn't serve your agenda to say that I routinely object to people being killed or harmed in situations where doing so is contrary to human consensus on what is right and decent.

Newsflash for iverglas: Human consensus is that it is right and decent to defend yourself.

How true, how true. But that IS NOT WHAT YOU SAID. What you said was:

Firearms are simply the means for defense.

Yes, because we were talking about self-defense.

Firearms are not simply the means for defence.

They are also the means for murder, suicide, robbery, intimidation ...

No shit? Really? Wow. What a revelation.

If you'd like to acknowledge that there is a consensus of modern human societies that there is a RIGHT TO LIFE, who knows, when you spoke, you might make sense.

What I'd like you to acknowledge is that:

1) I'd have a right to life regardless of any consensus on the matter.
2) I'd have a right to defend my life regardless of any consensus on the matter.

[iverglas]

25. says the person who says false things!

:rofl:

I don't think I have ever once seen a case of self-defense presented where you said, "Wow, good job!"

You're absolutely right on that one.

The cases of self-defence presented here are almost exclusively cases in which the action taken resulted in a death.

And unless the person who died was, oh, Adolph Hitler, you really will never see me say "Wow, good job!" Really. I just don't applaud the deaths of human beings, 99.999999% of the time.

Nor does any other decent human being.


When absolutely pressed to it, you will admit than in some rare, certain cases people might have the right to defend themselves, but it is always a point must grudgingly given.

Perhaps you're repeating a lie you've read somewhere. I can't think of any other reason you would say anything so blatantly false.


Newsflash for iverglas: Human consensus is that it is right and decent to defend yourself.

I don't watch Fox News.

Human consensus is that human beings have a right to life and a right to security of the person, and that it is sometimes necessary and justified to use force to protect one's self against death or serious injury.

And doing so is no more "right" or "decent" than eating pizza is. Necessary, just like eating pizza may be. And justified, just like stealing someone else's pizza may be.


What I'd like you to acknowledge is that:
1) I'd have a right to life regardless of any consensus on the matter.
2) I'd have a right to defend my life regardless of any consensus on the matter.

Don't forget:

3) 500 angels can dance on a pin.

I mean, if I'm "acknowledging" nonsense, let's go all the way, eh?

[gorfle]

26. Your twisted worldview is noted.

And unless the person who died was, oh, Adolph Hitler, you really will never see me say "Wow, good job!" Really. I just don't applaud the deaths of human beings, 99.999999% of the time.

Nor does any other decent human being.

I think lots of people would think that this lady did a good job:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTAADW9wNvk

It speaks volumes about you that you don't, though.

I guess since she didn't kill Adolf Hitler she's just not a decent person.

Perhaps you're repeating a lie you've read somewhere. I can't think of any other reason you would say anything so blatantly false.

Nope. Just summarizing my interpretation of what you've said over the years.

Human consensus is that human beings have a right to life and a right to security of the person, and that it is sometimes necessary and justified to use force to protect one's self against death or serious injury.

And doing so is no more "right" or "decent" than eating pizza is. Necessary, just like eating pizza may be. And justified, just like stealing someone else's pizza may be.

Again, it speaks volumes that you consider defending your life no more righteous than eating a pizza. You consider it "necessary", but not "right".

I mean really. How fucked up is that?

What I'd like you to acknowledge is that:
1) I'd have a right to life regardless of any consensus on the matter.
2) I'd have a right to defend my life regardless of any consensus on the matter.

Don't forget:

3) 500 angels can dance on a pin.

I mean, if I'm "acknowledging" nonsense, let's go all the way, eh?

Since you've declared my assertions to be nonsense, I'm going to assume, then, that in your opinion I don't have a right to life unless I have the consensus of modern human society and that I don't have a right to defend my life without the consensus of modern human society.

Again, it speaks huge, huge volumes that you don't think people have a right to life, nor the right to defend it, without the consensus of modern human society.

That is just beyond the pale.

And again, no further discussions on firearms are meaningful with you. Without the fundamental basis that people have a natural right to life and a natural right to defend it, irregardless of the consensus of other people, well, there's just nothing more to say.

[iverglas]

27. fascinating

I guess since she didn't kill Adolf Hitler she's just not a decent person.

You do??? How bizarre.


Again, it speaks volumes that you consider defending your life no more righteous than eating a pizza. You consider it "necessary", but not "right".

That's right. Hahahahaha.

It is neutral. It is up to the individual to decide whether to protect his/her life / personal security.

It is not up to me to pass judgment on the individual's decision by calling it either "right" or "wrong".

It may be necessary for the individual to use violence if s/he wishes to stay alive and not be seriously harmed, and the individual may be justified in using violence for that purpose, by the common consensus of humanity.

Anything else is a personal opinion based on whatever individuals base their personal opinions on. I tend to base mine quite often on the belief that what other people do isn't my business, unless it does or could have an effect on another person or on society, for better or for worse. It is wrong to harm other people. It is not wrong to do so in circumstances where it is necessary to do so in order to prevent harm being done to someone else wrongfully. It isn't "right" to do that; it simply is not "wrong".

I can appreciate that you may have a hard time understanding this, but there ain't much I can do about that.

If Adolph Hitler had shot someone who was attempting to kill him, say just before he ordered the blitz on London that killed thousands of people, would what he did have been "right"?

I would fail to see how you could say it wasn't. He had a right to defend himself, right? So, I mean really. How fucked up is that?


Since you've declared my assertions to be nonsense, I'm going to assume, then, that in your opinion I don't have a right to life unless I have the consensus of modern human society and that I don't have a right to defend my life without the consensus of modern human society.

Yeah, pretty much, eh?

Because, gosh, if that consensus didn't exist, and the government decided to execute you at dawn for eating pizza, well, those natural rights just wouldn't seem to be doing much for you, would they?


Do you actually even have a clue what "natural right" means / refers to?

No, I didn't think so.

[gorfle]

28. Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

If Adolph Hitler had shot someone who was attempting to kill him, say just before he ordered the blitz on London that killed thousands of people, would what he did have been "right"?

I would say that once you become a threat to humanity you lose your natural rights. I have the natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But if I become a threat to society, then I loose those rights.

Since you've declared my assertions to be nonsense, I'm going to assume, then, that in your opinion I don't have a right to life unless I have the consensus of modern human society and that I don't have a right to defend my life without the consensus of modern human society.

Yeah, pretty much, eh?

Because, gosh, if that consensus didn't exist, and the government decided to execute you at dawn for eating pizza, well, those natural rights just wouldn't seem to be doing much for you, would they?

Just because the government prevents me from exercising a right does not mean that the right does not exist. I, being of no threat to humanity, have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, even if my government or society decided tomorrow to deprive me of them without cause.

No man should be bound into slavery, even if it is by common consensus that he should be. Now by common consensus they may be able to force a man into bondage anyway, but this does not make it right. Why? Because it violates his natural rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

This, in very fact, is precisely how I would define tyranny! When a government trespasses against natural rights, you have a tyranny! If we accepted your definition, that we only have rights by common consensus, you are letting your government define your liberties! What, then if they decide to take them all away, by common consensus? Do you just go along with it because it was the common consensus?

Do you actually even have a clue what "natural right" means / refers to?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

"Natural rights (also called moral rights or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity."

"Natural rights, in particular, are considered beyond the authority of any government or international body to dismiss.

Kind of negates your whole "by consensus" argument, eh?

[iverglas]

29. "I would say that once you become a threat to humanity you lose your natural rights."

Well, I did say you didn't have a clue what "natural rights" means.

I was right.



"Natural rights, in particular, are considered beyond the authority of any government or international body to dismiss.

Kind of negates your whole "by consensus" argument, eh?

Uh, no.

Kind of has nothing to do with anything. Since I'm not talking about "natural rights". Since there's no such thing.

Perhaps you thought that when I referred to a consensus of humanity and human societies I was referring to "any government or international body". I don't know why you would have thought that.

[gorfle]

30. No, you are wrong.

"I would say that once you become a threat to humanity you lose your natural rights."

Well, I did say you didn't have a clue what "natural rights" means.

I was right.

But you provide nothing to substantiate your claim, as I did.

We all have a natural right to life.

But if I am walking down main street shooting at people, I have forfeited that right, by becoming a threat to humanity. People would be perfectly within their rights to kill me. If I infringe on the natural rights of others I cannot then claim to be beyond reproach because others are not allowed to infringe on my natural rights.

Kind of has nothing to do with anything. Since I'm not talking about "natural rights". Since there's no such thing.

So you keep saying.

I'm not going to waste much breath debating you about whether or not they exist. Our founders believed in them. I believe in them. The United Nations believe in them. I would hazard to say that most people believe in them.

By your logic, if the general consensus was that slavery was OK, then there would be nothing inherently immoral about it since no natural right to liberty being violated.

The bottom line is, you don't believe in natural rights. Which means that no one can have a discussion with you about firearms and their fundamental use in the defense of natural rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If you don't believe that such rights are natural, and are instead a product of general consensus and/or government sanction, via general consensus, then there is nothing to discuss.

My entire premise of firearm ownership is that they are Constitutionally protected tools that were intended to allow the people to protect their natural rights. Thus there is no way to proceed with you.

[iverglas]

31. "... I have forfeited that right"

Check a dictionary for the meaning of words like in/unalienable and inherent.

And aren't those natural rights thingies "god-given"? What the lord giveth and all that, remember.

Like I said: you are making it up as you go along. So maybe you could call your thingies "gorfle-given rights". What you are talking about are NOT "natural rights". You really just don't get to make up your own definitions.


The bottom line is, you don't believe in natural rights. Which means that no one can have a discussion with you about firearms and their fundamental use in the defense of natural rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Nope. It means that you are spouting a line of crap, and pretending to think (and going to great lengths to persuade someone else to think) that it is relevant to something under discussion.

[gorfle]

32. "god-given"

Check a dictionary for the meaning of words like in/unalienable and inherent.

I fully understand what those words mean.

I also believe that you cannot go on a murdering spree and then claim to be untouchable because you have an unalienable right to life.

This does not mean that we don't have an unalienable right to life.

And aren't those natural rights thingies "god-given"? What the lord giveth and all that, remember.

I don't believe in deities. I believe that natural rights are those things that we have simply by virtue of being human.

Like I said: you are making it up as you go along. So maybe you could call your thingies "gorfle-given rights". What you are talking about are NOT "natural rights". You really just don't get to make up your own definitions.

It doesn't matter. You have already said you don't believe in natural rights, by neither my definition nor that of Wikipedia nor that of the United Nations.

Nope. It means that you are spouting a line of crap, and pretending to think (and going to great lengths to persuade someone else to think) that it is relevant to something under discussion.

Your words. You said natural rights don't exist.

[gorfle]

39. It's a littler early, but...

Kind of has nothing to do with anything. Since I'm not talking about "natural rights". Since there's no such thing.

Perhaps you thought that when I referred to a consensus of humanity and human societies I was referring to "any government or international body". I don't know why you would have thought that.

It's a little early to say just yet, but right now it appears that the consensus of humanity, at least our little corner of it here at DU, is that natural rights exist.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x242816

[AtheistCrusader]

37. You guys are talking past each other...

Natural Rights have long been code in American culture for a god-given 'value' to human life. There is no such thing as a 'natural right'.

You DO have every right to defend yourself when attacked. So did that bear, when it percieved a threat. Who is right, and who is dead has nothing to do with some imaginary 'right' imbued in certain beings.



I don't personally grieve for the aggressor when killed in the act of committing a crime, but I can empathize with those who do. It's a symbol of waste and failure, even if the victim 'wins'.

[gorfle]

40. There are no natural rights?

There is no such thing as a 'natural right'.

Is slavery wrong? If yes, why?

[Pullo]

23. That didn't work out so well for Timothy Treadwell

[AtheistCrusader]

34. Oh bullshit.

Grizzlies and all other bears move around. Have you ever been in the forest? The only time FR's or game wardens post warnings is when hikers and campers sight one and call it in. They don't have time to keep tabs on the entire bear population of the state, and of course, the animals cross state lines at will.

Bears can be fairly sneaky. I've just about bumped into more than one black bear on trails here, they don't always hear the bells, busily grubbing around for a snack. If it's not moving around, and the cubs aren't vocalizing for any reason, it's pretty easy to get close to one unintentionally. Fortunately for me, black bears tend to run. Browns and Grizzlies might not. Particularly the latter.


I've seen the bear reports 'Grizzly sighted, east of Holland Peak on Monday' (It's Thursday) oh goodie THAT SURE NARROWS IT DOWN DOESN'T IT?

[geckosfeet]

2. Puzzled by your last sentence: 'Iam sure that the attacker ment no harm.'

Beyond the spelling, your meaning is obscure. Clearly the bear meant to ward off a perceived threat to its cubs. And now that the cubs are presumably without a mother, they will surely die. It seems that she was correct.

[eqfan592]

5. I'm puzzled by your last sentence...

...She could only have been viewed as being correct if the person in question was actually seeking to do harm to her prior to the attack. As there is no evidence that this is indeed the case, then such a statement as "It seems that she was correct" is not supported at this time.

Nice try though.

[geckosfeet]

6. 'Perceived' - I know, it's a big word, but you can look it up.

[Tim01]

7. Different than the "actual" attack that happened to him.

Maybe the griz could have found a way to scare him off other than biting his head so hard it broke his jaw.

[geckosfeet]

10. I don't expect wild animals to use reason. Come to think of it, I don't

expect most humans to use reason either.

Don't get me wrong, glad the guy was able to defend himself and stay alive. Just saying that the bear has a right to defend its cubs.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. Looks like the cubs will grow up in a zoo.

Loss of freedom, but still alive I guess. I'd rather see them go to a preservation society to be released when they are big enough to make it on their own, but in a zoo is better than nothing.

[proteus_lives]

3. A lucky guy!

And a good shot!

[iverglas]

9. hmm

Cindy and Jerry Ruth moved to Wyoming last year after Ruth retired from the Baltimore County Police Department in Maryland after a 28-year career as an officer. They bought property in Clark about a decade ago after falling in love with the area while on vacation, Cindy Ruth said. Her husband spent a month every summer working on their retirement home, she said.

On Sunday, Jerry Ruth and a friend took their four-wheelers for a ride onto an adjacent ranch to look for a herd of elk that Cindy had seen the day before. The two men were hoping to catch a glimpse of the elk, and maybe find a few antler sheds.

They were about a mile from Ruth's house when the men parked the four-wheelers and began walking into a small valley toward a pond through sage brush. Ruth's friend was ahead of him, Ruth said, and the men were 25 to 75 yards apart. Some of the sage brush was as tall as a man.

City folk, wandering around in the outback like idiots.

Did they need guns? Or did they need a keeper, or at the least a dose of common sense?


The cubs have been captured and confined to a zoo.

[geckosfeet]

11. Good for the cubs. I guess living in a zoo is better than dying.

[gorfle]

13. Nope.

City folk, wandering around in the outback like idiots.

Seeing as how they had the forethought to be prepared for their adventure, I'd say they were wandering around the outback like...prepared folks!

[AtheistCrusader]

35. I fail to see any reason to indict them as 'idiots'.

Nor as 'city folk'. I'm 'city folk' technically, but I spend most of my non-working hours as deep in the national forests as I have time to go. Taking a firearm is a good idea. Especially if you take a dog.

Though a line from Jursassic Park II comes to mind.. 'STAY OUT OF THE TALL GRASS!!'

[yost69]

17. i don't blame the guy for

shooting the bear. Anyone in his situation would have. What i do disagree with in this story is the following.

Ruth said he regrets having to shoot the bear, and suggests that people be aware of all wildlife when they venture out.

"I feel bad for killing the bear," he wrote. "I think it was just a matter of time (before) this bear would have gone after someone else."

Obviously he was not aware when he ventured out or he could have avoided this situation by parking the 4 wheeler in an open area.

Also if the bear had cubs that does not make them a man hunter. The bear would probably not went after someone unless they came to close to her.

[TheWraith]

20. This guy is incredibly lucky.

It's vastly easier said than done to kill a grizzly with a pistol. A lot of people have tried, and ended up dead for their trouble.

The best way to survive a grizzly attack is not to be the victim of one.

[AtheistCrusader]

36. I see a lot of strange behavior around here..

People hiking with headphones on, for one. Great, you have an under-developed sense of smell, so you handicap one of your two main senses for avoiding bears and large predators. GOOD JOB.

I've given up warning people. They have no clue. I think that old bear-bell joke about grizzly scat should be updated to the little white headphones from iPods.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. .41 caliber. Good choice. Unusual, but good.

Does it seem odd to anyone that a mama grizzly with 3 cubs would weigh in at sub-300 lbs at this time of year?

I wonder if they are getting enough to eat.

[X_Digger]

41. I wondered about that, too

Maybe it was food + protecting the cubs.

I once had a red fox follow me all day while I was mowing a large yard. When I sat down to eat my lunch, she gave me the big doe eyes. When she sat down not six feet from me, I saw that she must be feeding a pack of kits, so I gave her my lunch. She came back every day for almost a week.