This is unfortunate. I just figured out that you have to have a Facebook account in order to sign the petition.

For those that do have a Facebook account, please do sign the petition if you feel it in your heart to do so.

It never ceases to amaze me the never ending need for the hunters to have more and more creatures they want to kill. For most of these people, it isn't for food, it is the thrill of the kill. I just can't understand what enjoyment there is is taking the life of another living being or causing suffering, for those that are wounded and not tracked down. When they opened a season for killing Doves, it just made me shake my head. Now it is OK to kill these research bears just for their personal thrill. Sick, in my opinion. and yes, I do know where my beef, pork & poultry come from, these animals are raised for food, and their harvesting ( the clever euphemism hunters use) should be strictly regulated for humane treatment. Is there a limit for how many and types of creatures they need to kill?

I would love to sign the petition, but I thought online petitions were worthless - if there is paper petition, I will sign it right away.
Here's the information on online petitions with Snopes
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/petition/internet.asp

Thanks for the post; I have enjoyed watching Lily and her cubs, and following Hope's "travels" last year. I have signed the petition.

This is certainly a myopic view of the situation. All too often someone gets a crusade and wants petitions and things, but don't know what they want and I suspect that's the case here. Using inflammatory phrases and hyperbole often hurts a person's credibility in the end and often limits the desired results. What exactly is it that you want? "Protection", but exactly how?

First of all, you need to realize that contrary to what you imply, these bears would *not* be wearing blaze orange vests (but perhaps they should) and merely putting a ribbon on it and expecting someone to see this ribbon from a distance is naive at best. Perhaps you're unaware of the coat on a bear. It can very easily hide a ribbon on a collar that has to be of a certain tighness to the skin to stay on the animal. Seems to me there's a lot better ways to go about it to gain at least more of the end you possibly seek. One of course is to put something far more visible than a little ribbon on them. Many research animals are dyed to identify them. This would certainly make it far more visible. Another simple this is to post those areas for no hunting. Keep in mind that bear hunting is not 200,000,000 people out blasting away at random. Do you know that bear permits are issued by a lottery system, ergo, limited numbers and for a season that is about 6 weeks long? Another easy and simple option is bring those bears you want to protect into an enclosed area for 6 weeks out of the year.

BTW hunters also don't go into the dens to blast Boo-Boo either and I think it appropriate to clarify this. It might be of value to check the regulations to see what the state *is* doing, in addition to what they're allegedly *not* doing if you want to enter a rational discussion.

Have you contacted any hunting clubs or anything to see about working WITH them instead of the us vs. them situation that so often arises? I doubt you have. I don't know of anyone who hunts to purposely take game with a radio transmitter on it and true sportsmen (and women before the libbers throw a hissyfit) are interested in protecting wildlife, believe it or not. I'm inclined to believe you could muster support for your cause and gain allies you would want.

And let's not lose site that hunting *is* part of the order of things today, whether you like it or not. To say it sets the research back, well be realistic that this is part of the research too.
And it's also appropriate to point out that educating people on what the value is of this research, beyond watching den cams could also help your cause. Clearly you're opposed to hunting and that's certainly a view you're entitled to hold and I respect that. However, you should at least present it in a more accurate and less biased and exaggerated view IMO.

Cynic, if you had looked at the links I provided you would have had a lot more answers. I also don't appreciate the sarcastic and derogatory tone of your response.

I am not opposed to hunting. As a matter of fact, a very good friend of my husband and myself is a Michigan bear hunting guide. I'd be glad to recommend him to anyone who wishes to come bear hunting in this area.

I know that bear hunting permits are issued by lottery and I know how long bear hunting season is.

I am not using inflammatory phrases and hyperbole. I am simply stating what I've read on http://www.bear.org/ and related pages. This is an official effort to get protection for this group of bears. The Bear Center IS working with hunters, not against them, and a large number of hunters are publicly supporting their efforts.

I don't have time to address every comment you made in your post, but please take a look at the photo in the link below to see the 'ribbons' I mentioned. Hunters in Minnesota are required to not shoot deer which have antlers under 3 inches in length. Do you think these ribbons are as hard to see as a 3 inch antler?

These are wild bears and bringing them into an enclosed area is not an option.

Grandma Bonnie, these petitions are being sent directly to:

Representative David Dill, Representative Phyllis Kahn, Representative Denny McNamara, Senator Bill Ingebrigtsen, Commissioner Tom Landwehr

They are sponsored by: Wildlife Research Institute and the North American Bear Center

Here is a link that might be useful: Picture of what the 'Ribbons' look like

The Minnesota DNR does make an effort to protect these bears - see their website. However it isn't a crime if someone does shoot one intentionally or accidentally during the 45 day hunting season.

How many of the bears have actually been shot during hunting seasons?

Don't get me wrong - I'm all in favor of saving the bears. I'm a huge animal lover. However I'm not so much in favor of more legislation for government that is growing at an unsustainable rate and one that already has difficulty enforcing the many laws already on the books (for example driving while intoxicated and/or injuring/killing someone while doing so).

Here is a link that might be useful: Minnesota DNR

Jel48, exactly what is stopping the bear center (or you for that matter) from tying ribbons to these bears? I still question the net value and the picture you link to is fine when you're as close as that picture was taken! But not many hunters go that close even though the bear center encourages hand feeding of (these "wild") bears, not many would suggest that it's a wise thing to do if your mission is to keep them "wild" as the bear center claims as its mission. Roy and Montecore should give a hint to what happens when you try to domesticate wild animals.

And yes, I looked at your picture of the ribbons. Sure they look nice when you're up close and personal to them, and while the ribbons are new but how long do you think they will they look like that? Do you really think they're going to look so fresh and bright when the light is low, cloudy days and after the bear has been sleeping on them scratching and tugging at them after being out in the rain, snow and through the underbrush? As I said, nothing is stopping them/you from decorating these bears, but to say "The state of Minnesota, has so far refused to protect these radio collared bears from hunters." is not something with which I can agree (and I'll leave it at that for now). Just because they don't gift wrap certain bears doesn't mean they've "refused to protect" them. Put them in a pink tutu and a parasol for all I'm concerned but this doesn't require the intervention nor the vilification of the DNR and the State especially at times when the State has the financial challenges it faces currently.

Gibby3000, I don't have definitive answers but from a cursory search I found one bear shot legally during hunting season and one that was poached. And yes, I'm opposed to poaching.

"I am simply stating what I've read on http://www.bear.org/ and related pages." This shows what happens when someone takes info from a fund-raising website (essentially a zoo that makes hundreds of thousands of dollars a year) and runs with it. My understanding is that their research permit prohibits entertainment and profit from the "research". I need to check into that a little more but maybe one of you know if that's accurate.

The reality is making it illegal to shoot a collared bear is going to be highly unenforceable. Comparing it to a spike buck is silly. It would be a valid comparison to say you don't hunt cubs to a certain age and that's the spike buck regulation. But histrionics rage on. Perhaps if you put some flashing lights on these collars it would help. But then I suppose someone would have an epileptic seizure and sue someone too.

It's also important to note that these bears do not belong to the bear center nor to the people who from it profit. They're part of the wildlife - a public resource and while the DNR has a responsibility to look out for wildlife, it's charged with looking out for the wildlife as a whole, not just a select few which some people have (whether properly or not) chosen to name and tame. There's a good case to be made that taking and taming wildlife is abusive to the wildlife. Can tamed animals really go back to the wild? There's a lot of things to ponder before running off signing petitions. Perhaps there should be a petition on bear abuse?

The more I read about this operation, the more annoyed I become. Their taming and feeding these bears actually hurts the wildlife in the long run. Even with the "stars" of the bear center circus, Lily and her cub, which she abandoned, demonstrates the abuse of the wildlife they purport to support. It's quite well known among bear experts that young bear mothers are poor mothers. If they reproduce at a young age they'll lose interest in the cubs and often abandon them. There's a very high mortality rate among the offspring of younger sows. The older they are, the higher the probability they'll be a good mother and the cubs will survive. Overfeeding and taming of the bears contributes to their reproducing at a younger age thereby compounding the problems. For the people who followed "Hope" and "Lily" you know that Lily not surprisingly abandoned her cub.

It's interesting to note that black bears in North America number over 900,000 and the population is growing. Asian bears OTOH are at dangerously low number but aren't as profitable. Shame on this operation. They've made hundreds of thousands of dollars (probably more accurately, millions of dollars) using these bears and are nothing short of abusing them. The only petition I'd consider is one to revoke their permits and shut down this operation. This is disgusting.

People are certainly free to support causes in which they believe. I hope that people considering supporting this sham will get at least some of their information from more than just a fundraising website. This reminds me of all the emails saying "send this to everyone you know!" and then the $250 cookie recipe fills mailboxes. It's sad and troublesome in so many ways.

Well me too cynic but in a different way. As a Minnesota taxpayer I would like all those from other states and countries who want this to provide the funds to enact and enforce a new law to protect bears that are part of a private program. Geeesh - as long as governments are broke we need to stop with this kind of stuff. We can only do so much - need to focus on the priorities.

I'm not here to argue with anyone and I guess I'm not even here to try to convert anyone.

Cynic, please don't take personal digs at me. You don't know me. And I won't take personal digs at you. I don't know you either.

All I ask is that those who think this is a worthy cause, (or who think it might be a worthy cause and who want to check it out more closely) just take a look at the information and the links I provided in my initial post.

Help if you feel called to do so.

I put the link for the petition at the bottom if my first post. If you want to get really involved, check check out all the links. If you want to help and only have a moment, just click the bottom link and sign the petition.

You don't need a facebook to sign the petition

Here is a link that might be useful: petition link

And what I ask is that people check things out before mounting a crusade for something on which they're uninformed and base their position on one biased website. If you feel it's worthwhile, of course, support it, but at least be educated on it and not just go by limited and biased information. And those who agree that this is abusive to the bears to force taming upon them and effectively kill their offspring should also protest that action by a moneyhungry operation misrepresenting its actions.

There's a lot of options besides what have been presented. That's obvious. There's no "digs" when you present facts. And as Charlie Chan says "One picture worth 10,000 words". I feel a person is responsible for the information s/he presents and shouldn't later back away from it trying to blame a website unless you admit that you were wrong from the start. And that's my opinion.

The more I investigate this operation, the more the terms "scam" and "sham" strike me. I think facts are better than hysteria, don't you?