Pennsylvania Hunter Takes Massive Black Bear

Send by email Printer-friendly version Share this

David Price of Cresco Pennsylvania shot a 875 pound black bear with a crossbow last week. Mr. Price was hunting with his brothers and cousins and reportedly had been after the bear for a few years. The Times-Tribune of Scranton PA, has a write up about the bear, the hunter and the hunt.

The bear apparently had a history with the state Game Commission and was known as "Bozo" by locals. According to this this op-ed piece over at the Pocono Record, Bozo was fed for years by Leroy Lewis, for which Mr. Lewis was cited.

Regardless of the history of the bear it appears that the record weight will stand and it is just a matter of waiting for the required drying period to see exactly how the skull measures up.

Despite the bear's neighborhood notoriety, Mr. Schweitzer [Pennsylvania State Game Commission] said Mr. Price's kill holds up.

"This particular bear was out on public hunting ground on national park service land and was considered fair game," Mr. Schweitzer said. "We did take a look at that, but we're not substantiating anything, so unless something else comes up, we're considering it good."


bearlover's picture

What do you consider "rights"?

I will have to throw your comment back at you.  You don't seem to acknowledge many of points that I make.  I feel the need  to restate them in order to clarify myself to you.  I also had to discuss whether or not I left a racist comment when I was trying to illustrate "dominance", which blows my mind.  I also commented about the Holocaust.  That does not make me anti-German. 

This particular part of our dialogue started with Mr. "CA_Vermonster" claiming that "animals are here for us to do with as we see fit".  He claimed this was a "fact" and that he was willing to discuss it "scientifically".  I challenged him to do so.  He tried but failed.  You interjected yourself into this dialogue, by siding with him ("well said").  So, you are wrong.  You sided with CA_Vermonster and his position, so, although you did not say it, you agree with it and therefore I have the right to use it in defending my position to you.

If I use your comments as an opportunity to get on my soapbox, so what?  This whole web site is a soapbox.  What don't you understand about that?  I've read what you've written and some of the other posts where hunters mention "God", the Pledge of Allegence and other stuff that I never interject into the discussion.  Mr. CA_Vermonster accused me of accusing him of killing everything that moves with a machine gun and rolling around in the blood.  It's a lie.  But it's also dramatic BS.  If you feel that I am getting on my soapbox, you are correct.  I will say that I make every attemp to not just write my stand-alone opinion.  I try to offer facts to support my position(s), something I find others do not do. 

I guess I'lll have to challenge your definition of the word "rights".  I would say that:  rights are entitlements and freedoms supported by law, customs and/or behavior.  If Man enacts a law to protect something under any circumstance, then Man has by default given that thing "rights".  Example:  If it is illegal to kill an American Bald Eagle, then the Eagle has rights.  I'm not sure how you would see that as any different.  So if the law makes it illegal to treat animals cruely (abuse them), then the law has given them rights.  Those rights may not be the same rights as humans have (that is part of the debate of this discussion), but they have some rights nevertheless.  As for enslavement and forced sterilization, you are wrong.  You are making a leap and (again) not understanding what I have written.

I have been arguing that their lives have the same value as yours and mine.  I have argued that they are NOT as cognitive as humans.  For instance, a dog cannot drive a car.  We all know this.  We accept this.  However, like have done for children, we as a society have agreed to protect them.  That is why we "enslaved" them (as you put it) and we sterilize them.

I live in Pennsylvania.  In Pittsburgh on Oct 17, 2007, Keyra Kenney left 2 dogs to starve to death.  She was convicted of two counts of animal cruelty.  She was given house arrest, three years probation, $2,000 fine and mandatory counseling.  Now, these are not necessarily harsh punishments but it is punishment for her act of cruelty towards her two dogs.  This case points out that the law agrees that dogs lives are inherently valuable.  Therefore, the law protects the lives of dogs, which gives them rights.  Legally, dogs have the right to food, shelter and the right to not be harmed.  So, again, sorry you are wrong.

I never stated that it was a "fact" that an animals life is equal to yours.  I have been trying to show you that it is.  I understand that society does not see the life of an animal as equal to a human's.   But, as you have stated, this is only a belief.  It is not "science".  This is exactly what I have been arguing over, which I why I have continued to use the "slavery" and Native American examples.  Because once upon a time, African Americans were not treated as equal to white men.  In fact, they were not allowed into certain buildings and had to use separate entrances.  But over time, we realized that they are equal to white men.

You are correct.  There is no law against raising cattle for consumption.  It is accepted by society.  However, some states have enacted animal welfare laws.  So again, although the animal is breed for slaughter, some states have agreed that they need not be raised in misery, pain and suffering.  Those laws, however small, provide rights for those animals.

In regards to wild animals, I mentioned in my last post to you that by setting up defined hunting seasons and placing animals on endangered species lists, we give rights to those animals.  If you kill a bear out of season, in many states (I do not all the laws governing every state, so forgive me for generalizing) it is considered illegal.  You can get in trouble.  In fact, look at the No Charges in Self Defense Grizzly Killing article on this web site.  A hunter killed a grizzly bear in Wyoming protecting himself from an attack and he was being investigated for ten months.  The law has protected that grizzly bear, thus giving him rights.  If that were not true, then no one would have 1) put the grizzlies on the endangered list and  2) cared that this hunter shot one.

Footnote:  Just to prevent us from going down this path, I feel badly about the killing but feel both personally and legally, that the hunter did nothing wrong.

I'm not sure why you disagree with me in that by making laws to protect something, then Man has given that thing rights.  I have even tried to explain that laws are man-made and may be flawed.  I have explained that we write laws and later we may remove a law or modify it because our understanding (or belief) in something will change.

As I continue to say, I appreciate your comments but you have not proven to me that animals have no rights and that their lives are not equal to ours.

CVC's picture

I will reply to your post,

I will reply to your post, but understand this is probably the last time I will reply because I grow weary of this circular discussion.  You believe that animals are equal to humans and that is your belief that no one will change or temper so further discussions are not constructive and are just repetative.

Rights are something we are born with, not something given by the government.  We, as men, all have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  This is a right that the government does not give us.  Animals have no right to life as we routinely kill them for food, freedom as we routinely keep them captive and no right to pursue happiness - their life is dictated by how we choose to allow them to live.

We have laws to protect the environment, by your definition the earth would have rights since man has enacted laws to protect it and it is not the case.  The earth has protections, just as animals do, but not rights.  Rights transcends the government, except when provided by a country's constitution.  No where in the US Constitution will you find any rights for animals.

Now, some laws that protect animals may be almost as good as a right, except man makes laws and man can change laws.  Rights remain regardless of law, although governments and people can oppress others and infringe upon their rights.  Nonetheless they still remain.  Take away protections for the bald eagle and the eagle has no protections.

Alligators for a while were a protected species and you could not kill them.  This was a protection as not a right because once their population was stablized you could once again kill alligators.

Another example is the government has rules that allow us to drive an automobile, but we have no right to drive.  It is a privilege given by the government.

You disregarded my comment about forced sterilization.  How can you justify forcing an animal whose life is equal to a man to undergo sterilization?  How can you justify imprisonment of an animal whose life is equal to a man's to remain captive for a human's enjoyment?

And, where do you draw the line of dominance?  You believe that man should not dominant lesser creatures, but how far does that extend and how do you differentiate between a bear, a fish and an ant?  Why is a bear's life of value, but not an ant's?  Or are they all equal to a man's?

I am sure none of this will persuade you from your belief, but I felt that I should respond to be polite.

And lest anyone accuses me of carrying on converstations for the point value, this lengthy and remarkable brillian post will probably earn me 6 points :)

bearlover's picture

The LAW gives RIGHTS

I think your definition of rights is flawed.  Let's look at it backwards.  If you believe that rights are something we are born with, then why was slavery in existence in this country?  Those Africans were, as you said, born with rights.  In fact, the man-made laws, at the time, removed the rights of Africans when they were brought over here.  Over time, we abolished slavery and gave African Americans their rights back.  You see, the law took away someones rights then gave them back.  Therefore, the law can give rights and rights can come and go with the law! 

I agree that my definition is flawed.  I would add that rights are given to living things.  Yes, you will probably argue that the Earth is a living organism, but that is not what I am referring to.

As for your alligator example, I disagree.  The law gave the alligators rights, then the law took away those rights.  The jews in Germany were born with rights, but the Nazis took away their rights when they began rounding them up and killing them.  Where were their rigthts?

As for the automobile example, again, I disagree.  By my defiinition, the right IS given to the person.  We allowed to drive therefore we have the right to drive. But again, the law may take that right away if you abuse it.  There is no law forcing anyone to drive.

You are wrong.  I did comment on "forced sterilization" and "enslavement".  I stated that we, as a society, have agreed to protect our domesticated animals, for they do not have the same cognitive intelligence as humans.  Much like we protect our children, for children are not yet as intelligent as an adult and they are less aware.  This is an example of why I feel that it is YOU that do not read the things I have written.  I clearly explained this issue in my last post.

I have not taken the opportunity to go into my theory of dominance.  I do feel that the bear's life is just as valuable as an ant's.  And that a human's as valuable as an ant's.

I do not understand what you are talking about in regards to points, but OK.  Sounds good.

If this is your last comment, OK.  I did actually enjoy our debates.  I still completely disagree with you.  And I'm guessing that you completely disagree with me.  Maybe we do it again over another issue down the road.

bearlover's picture

Not Well Said...

I appreciate your comments and I wish you well too.

However, you have falsely accused me of lumping all hunters together thinking that you spend your weekends chasing animals with machine guns, killing everything that moves, rolling around in their blood.  I did not say that and do not appreciate you making up stuff up about me in this discussion.  I have respect for all living things, including hunters.  My brother is a hunter.  We completely disagree but we get along fine.  He's a good guy.  Ask Mr CVC, from this web site.  We have had several back-n-forth posts on this one particular issue (read them all!).  I have been respectful and courteous to him and him to me.   I understand the idea of hunting for food.  I disagree with it completely, but I understand it.

If you have such tolerance for "people on [my] side" and you are not going to insult me, then why did you say that I have a "twisted ideology"?  I'm not sensing your "tolerance" in that comment.  

Also, you are not 100% standing by my decision not to eat or hunt animals because the whole basis of my decision is that an animal has the same right to life as you and I, which you 100% disagree with and is what this whole discussion is about!

I also did not compare you to Michael Vick.  I was clearly pointing out that we, as a society, have created animal cruelty laws because we have evolved and now understand that animals do, in fact, have rights and have the right to be protected.  I mentioned Michael Vick as a stand alone comment, as he was initially charged for dog fighting and killing dogs.  100 years ago, no one would have cared and if anyone did what Michael Vick did, it would not matter.  Now, it is illegal.  That was clearly my point.

I did not accuse you, personally, of baiting bears.  You (falsely) accused me of supporting the feeding of bears.  I sited "baiting" as an example of how hunters "feed" bears and other wildlife.  My point was simple, it's a semantic issue.  If I put a box of donuts in my yard for a bear, I get a citation because it's against the law.  If you put a box of donuts under a tree stand and wait for a bear to come along, then shoot it.  It's called "baiting" and it's legal.  The act is the same - feeding a wild animal.  

Now, to get to the point of you proving through science that animals were put on the Earth for us to do with as we see fit...

First off, you are wrong.  Slavery, women's suffrage and animal cruelty are absolutely comparable in this instance.  They are past atrocities that we, as a society have agreed were wrong.  Therefore, we evolved and gave African Americans, women and animals rights.  We made laws to protect against those atrocities from happening again and to (possibly) punish those that may commit them.

I am not debating animal evolution in regards to physical or mental attributes.  Yes, animals did not build the pyramids or the Parthenon.  But they are living beings and have the same right to life as you and I.  Just because we have the power to take their life does not give us the right to do so (note my comment on Native Americans below).  Just because they are of lesser cognitive intelligence, does not mean their lives are valueless and we have the right (scientifically speaking) to do with them as we see fit.  Cognitive intelligence does not directly correlate to the value of life.  If that were so, then what of the humans that have low intelligence or lack awareness (I am not talking about mentally challenged people).  That does not give us the right to do with them as we see fit.  Human beings drive drunk, smoke cigarettes and do other acts that are foolish, stupid and possibly fatal (much like a deer wandering out in front of a car).  Does that give us the right to claim superiority over another person, race, sex, religion, etc?  No.  I am talking about the value of a living being.

Native Americans were not aware or prepared for the onslaught of Europeans to this country.  They were ultimately overpowered.  Is that evolution?  No.  100 years ago, Native Americans were not even considered human beings (to the majority).  They were "savages".  We now completely acknowledge that Native Americans are human beings.  We acknowledge that they have rights.

It's also interesting to note that one of the original "scientific" definitions of human beings was that we used tools.  However, "science" has had to modify that definition because they found that gorillas make tools out of sticks, which they use to put into ant hills in order to pull out ants.  This shows that "science", itself,  is also evolving because it has been and will continue to be wrong as we learn more.  So, in essence, to even rely on "science" is a flaw, in and of itself.

You wrote a lot of stuff (some of it hypocritical) but "scientifically" speaking you have not proven that animals are here for us to do with as we see fit.  Sorry.  For this report, you get an F.


CVC's picture

Well said!

Well said!

bearlover's picture

Seriously??? Well Said???


I have to say, I find your response to CA_Vermonster's comment hypocritical.  You were very disturbed that I made, by your estimation, a "racist" comment and felt the need to state your condemnation of it.  Although I explained my use of the word, you argued back that it was wrong.

Yet this guy falsely accused me of saying that I think that you hunters spend your weekends chasing animals around the woods with machine guns, killing everything that moves and rolling around in their blood.  

You and I have now had several discussions on this site.  I never said anything like that to you.  I'm sure that you have read my comments/replys to CA_Vermonster, so you know that I never said anything like that to him.

It would have been nice for you to comment on and condemn those false accusations.  I guess I expected better from you!

Ca_Vermonster's picture

That's the one I posted on

That's the one I posted on the other day in the Bear forum, I believe.  It is a BEAST!  Can you imagine seeing that thing walk in to your hunting area?  Geez......

CVC's picture

The bear is huge.  You

The bear is huge.  You normally think of bears that size coming from Canada, not PA.  The real story is not the article to which the blog links, but the comments that follow the story.  I urge everyone to read them as they will provide a true insight into the mindset of people who don't hunt. 

The comments are started out by a woman who mocks the man's accomplishment and questions the size of his, well you know what.  One poster countered by pointing out that women hunt too, and asks what she has to say about them.

I think the posts are about fifty fifty pro/con.

GooseHunter Jr's picture

Man that is a monster of a

Man that is a monster of a bear.  I think I would venture out into the woods with more than a crossbow if I knew was lurking around the next tree. Congrats to the hunter.

CVC's picture

I see you have a fan....lucky

I see you have a fan....lucky you.