They spend weeks trying to sedate him without any luck yet he is shot/murdered within hours of allowing hunters to shoot him! Does anyone else agree that it was totally unnecessary?
2006-06-28 01:30:49 · 9 answers · asked by david b 2 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
I think it was the pride of the Bavarian state government.They obviously didn't have any experience with this situation,and they were too pig-headed too ask for international help,probably because it would have been Russian-they've had more experience,or Norwegian,they have to deal with Polar Bears.
2006-06-28 01:36:36 · answer #1 · answered by foxspearman 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree the shooting was totally unnecessary. The hunter saw his one in a lifetime chance to shoot a bear and be "the king of the hill". What a waste of life! Besides, if you can shoot a bear with a bullet - you could also hit him with a sedation arrow.
People, were totally hysterical about the bear because they still have that myth of the past logged in their minds: a bear of wolf will kill me while I am out in the woods.
That was most likely the case 800 years ago. If other countries can handle their finally released large animals, why can't Germany? It seems to be a long way to go for people to arrive in the year 2006. I guess most people are not as well educated and civilized as they think. Even though the bear is dead, I do hope the hunter gets a major punishment - and comes back as bear in a zoo in his next life!
2006-06-28 02:08:03 · answer #2 · answered by sklawitter 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree it was totally unnecessary. I don't understand why they did it.
It was the first bear they have seen in Bavaria after 170 years!!!!!!
They tent to be a very rare specie in the Germany but to other countries as well.
I don't see the point why people hunting, in general.
As for the rip off that bears do to people , I think that they rip you off only when you annoy them.
And finally yes there are more important problems in the world right now but if we don't protest about the animals as well then we have lost our sense of humanity.
2006-06-28 01:46:52 · answer #3 · answered by dr_sophia_k 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What do you suggest they should have done? Negotiate terms with the bl**dy thing? Have you ever seen a wild bear? Do you know what they do to people if they catch them? They rip them to bits. Literally. Sedative darts are dodgy at best and can often serve to enrage the beast, or get the dosage wrong and you've killed it anyway. Much as it served to put the local treehuggers in yet another ear-splitting snit, shooting Bruno was the right decision and avoided a potentially much greater problem.
2006-06-28 01:40:00 · answer #4 · answered by ANGUS 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes totally unnecessary. Where there's a will there's a way. I suppose the authorities found it cheaper and easier to issue a "kill on sight" instruction. There are always enough budding Davy Crocketts out there to do the deed.
2006-06-28 22:37:59 · answer #5 · answered by Veritas 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well at first they tried buying him a beer and then they invited him around to dinner... when that didn't succeed they decided to shoot him... get a life will you??
There are bigger things going on in the world don't you know... when are we going to prevent the Israelis from murdering the Palestinians whose land they occupy, when are the Allied forces going to stop murdering innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan....
2006-06-28 01:37:52 · answer #6 · answered by Violent and bored 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
was the result of the football.
All the thermal imaging cameras were sent to monitor the football fan nutters rather than quickly track down the animal.
Personally id just let all the football fans go at it, could wipe out the chav population over night
2006-06-28 01:36:44 · answer #7 · answered by enigma_variation 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush/Iraq same thing isn't it. killing something that's a threat.
2006-06-28 01:53:25 · answer #8 · answered by twalpole_2000 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yep that is life (or death) in all its depressing glory.
2006-06-28 01:38:50 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋