Oklahoma’s Proposed Bear Hunt Brings Out The Best In Outrageous Rhetoric

While I’m still attempting to get definitive answers from someone at the Oklahoma Division of Wildlife Conservation as to the thought process in deciding to allow for the hunting harvest of 20 black bears by archery hunting first, followed by muzzle loader hunting after that, if the 20-bear quota hasn’t been reached. All I’m trying to do is find out why preferred treatment is being given to archery hunters. In their thinking, there maybe a good explanation but inquisitive minds can’t help but ask why.

In the meantime, the press, specifically the Associated Press, prints for it’s readers utter nonsense concerning bears and bear hunting. In an article link sent to me by a reader, we find the AP traveled from Oklahoma all the way to Oregon to find an anti-bear hunting organization willing to speak out against the proposal.

What I found interesting was the AP’s decision to call someone who heads up an animal advocacy group that claims the following:

Big Wildlife was formed in 2006 to provide a voice for carnivores such as cougars, bears, coyotes, and wolves in North America. Dynamic, gutsy, and visionary, Big Wildlife combines innovative media strategies with nuts and bolts grassroots organizing. We provide training to activists – including hands-on skills development workshops in organizing, outreach, lobbying, and media – coordinate grassroots efforts at the local level, build effective coalitions with alternative voices, and work closely with activists to generate media.

Not only that, the guy they contacted for input, Spencer Lennard, was referred to as a “wildlife conservation official”.

But some wildlife conservation officials fear Oklahoma is moving too quickly without having a firm number on how many bears there are in the state.

The AP then went on to quote Lennard. Evidently it is the view of the Associated Press that anyone with an agenda to end hunting is a wildlife conservation official. I find that interesting. Have they no other credibility?

But let’s look at what Lennard said. He tells AP, who I’m sure was quite eager to run with this, that hunting black bears in Oklahoma creates what he calls an “empty forest syndrome”. Doesn’t that conjure up wonderful images. Is that out of the Walt Disney book of top one hundred fantasies? He describes this “empty forest syndrome” as “animal populations are wiped out across large swathes of their natural habitat.”

Out of an estimated black bear population of between 700 and 800 bears, the killing of 20 bears is going to “wipe out animal populations across large swathes of their natural habitat”? With such an outrageous and unsubstantiated claim, one would think that if the Associated Press, which pretends to be a legitimate source of news, would just question that statement. It would be simple really. Here, let me help the AP out a little on how to ask a question. They could have asked: If there are 700-800 bears in Oklahoma, how is killing 20 of them going to create your “empty forest syndrome”? Could you elaborate on that and give us some scientific support to your claim? Too, responsible and it might not sell well enough or promote their own agendas.

False claims continue to get printed by the AP.

“For whatever reason we give for wanting to kill these animals … we’re ending up with a serious reduction in biodiversity.

I’ll agree with Lennard that IF we created an “empty forest syndrome” by wiping out animal populations over a large swath of their habitat, we would have a serious reduction in biodiversity. We’d also have a fish and game department that is in serious need of being replaces. Maybe we could replace them with some of those “wildlife conservation officials” up in Oregon.

Do we not give any credence to the state of Oklahoma’s Division of Wildlife Conservation? Could the AP have asked that question?

But I want to give the AP some credit. They also talked with Lynn Rogers, a researcher at the North American Bear Center in Ely, Minnesota. Rogers says he doesn’t think killing 20 bears would have any effect on the growth of the bear population in Oklahoma but instead he opted to attack the archery hunters with this claim.

“If you’re going to kill them, you want to kill them dead,” Rogers said. “If you’re using inferior methods to shoot them, you’re going to have a higher-than-normal wounded loss, and by the time you reach 20, you might have 50 dead out there.”

Are you kidding me? He’s suggesting that at least 30 bears will end up wounded and die from archery hunters. I sure would like to see the facts that support that claim. I’ll admit the rate of wounded game animals is probably higher with archery than rifle, maybe even higher with muzzle loader than rifle but I have serious doubts that 50 bears are going to get killed. I just don’t understand the reasoning for making such a comment. If that was an honest and verifiable statistic, archery hunting should be banned.

But again, unless the person collecting the information about this story is a total moron, shouldn’t the AP have questioned whether that rate was high or golly, gee whiz, they might have asked how that rate compares to rifles or shotguns or muzzle loaders, etc. I wonder if they know what a bear is?

So on it goes. The AP full well knows that people read their crap and swallow their crap and crap tastes good and it serves all their purposes. And they continue on.

Tom Remington