An 11-year-old boy killed a bear at point-blank range last Wednesday night after it wouldn't leave his family's porch.
The boy was at his home near Driggs with his younger sisters and after seeing the bear on the front porch and not being able to get it to leave, the boy retrieved a gun and killed the animal.
The family declined to comment and wished to remain anonymous. Otherwise PETA would be all over their a$$.
Fish and Game Conservation Officer Doug Petersen said the black bear had been a problem in the area near the county transfer station, and he and Fish and Game Officer Lauren Wednt had set up a trap earlier in the week. Boy with gun: 1 Game officer with trap: 0
"The bear had been hanging around and we got multiple complaint calls," said Wendt. The bear had been getting into garbage cans and bird feeders in the area.
Petersen said officials may have had to put it down anyway. He said that in situations where the bear has been a problem around humans or threatens human safety, they usually don't issue citations.
"Human safety is a higher priority," said Petersen. "We're concerned with how bears are managed and we want to live in harmony with them." And I'm sure the bear concurs with you.
The boy and his family are not in any trouble, and Petersen said he issued them a permit to keep the bear. Usually when a bear is put down by Fish and Game they sell the hide at a state auction, Petersen said. Petersen said the family reported the bear Thursday morning. Fish and Game trapped and euthanized another problem black bear about two weeks ago, after the bear reportedly let himself into a home. Petersen said it's normal for the animals to move from higher elevations this time of year.
"We don't like to see them down this low," said Petersen. "But it's not uncommon."
#1
"He said that in situations where the bear has been a problem around humans or threatens human safety, they usually don't issue citations."
Tongue planted firmly in cheek I presume, but then, with some LE-types, you can never be sure.
And what would they do if the bear showed up in court to challenge the citation (certain lawyer types in present govt coming to mind as defense counsel).
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
11/17/2009 6:18 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Poor bears need a place they can call their own, like Central Park, NYC.
Posted by: ed ||
11/17/2009 6:59 Comments ||
Top||
#3
In bear country, humans are not at the top of the food chain. It is important to remember this.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/17/2009 9:01 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Driggs has hit the skids with the New Economy, Jackson on the other hand is a thriving "high"income community full of heavy hitting politicos and heads of industry. come live in Idaho and quit "speculating" about the response we give bear hunters and kids who are lucky enough to get one on the front porch, it aint a big city out here.
#8
What kind of gun did he use, and what load? Seems like what he'd need to take down a bear cleanly would also likely knock him on his a** if he wasn't used to it.
A seventeen year veteran of CNN claimed Sunday that Lou Dobbs' surprising exit from the network was because "his opinions are out of lockstep with the rest of the mainstream news media."
Discussing the issue with Howard Kurtz on CNN's "Reliable Sources," Chris Plante, a former CNN correspondent and current talk radio host, said Dobbs, as "the last conservative voice on the channel," no longer fit in.
"They had Glenn Beck, he's gone. They had [Dobbs], now he's gone," claimed Plante.
When Plante said CNN hosts Campbell Brown, Anderson Cooper, and Larry King weren't "completely neutral," Kurtz asked, "Are you suggesting that those hosts lean to the left?"
#4
my bad. I try my best not too watch CNN but why is there a pic of Meade in the article? I'm guessing i probably just answered my own question as too why they wouldn't put a pic of the other woman.
Posted by: chris ||
11/17/2009 10:25 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: ed ||
11/17/2009 10:39 Comments ||
Top||
#6
What Procpius said. True liberals like Jim Webb would never bow and scrape before the House of Saud or Hirohito's son. True liberals would never be so foolish as to try KSM in a civilian court. True liberals would never openly shovel favors and money to a bare-knuckle Wall Street trading shop like Goldman.
Obama is not a liberal. He's a just a callow little lefty junior prof who has no business leading anyone.
#7
So was GW a fake liberal or a true liberal when he not only bowed to the House of Saud, but also held his hand? This tempest in a teacup over Zero bowing to the Emperor of Japan, when visiting him in Japan is ridiculous. You do know that many other presidents have done similar things in the past right? You do know that there are actual, moronic policies of this president to criticize and ridicule right? Why do the pundits on the right continue to throw away their credibility on non-issues? Pathetic. You people are making me sad that I was ever a Republican. Will the real Conservatives please stand up?
#9
You people are making me sad that I was ever a Republican. Will the real Conservatives please stand up?
I'd suggest half are having fun poking at the Messiah, the others are actually a little pissed off given his Apology Tours. If you have trouble identifying with that, fine, but don't play the purity game, AHM. You don't want an archive search, I'm sure
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/17/2009 19:48 Comments ||
Top||
#10
It's even worse than that - he bowed wrong, you're not supposed to touch during a bow, let alone shake hands.
Then again, once you've been hugging the queen, I guess anything goes.
AHM - does it matter that an enormous white house staff, and decades, if not centuries, of protocol practices cannot get even this correct?
Sometimes the silly errors do an excellent job of pointing out the serious ones.
Obama was the subject of many a pundits admiration. So smart! So worldly! Harvard Law Review. And so eloquent. That his speeches upon further reflection were practically unintelligible or self-parodies (are we the ones we have been waiting for? are the oceans really going to recede?) didnt much matter. He was so smart.
So why isnt his presidency going better than it is?...
Well, there are several answers to my headline question. First, the punditocracy confused credentials with knowledge or smarts. A Harvard Law degree does not necessarily confer on one the insight that even if we can try KSM in courtroom, we shouldnt. Obama seems not at all familiar with the operation of free markets. He has only a dim grasp of how we won the Cold War. And its quite apparent that whatever credentials the president possesses, they didnt enable him to perceive the motives of the mullahs.
Second, even intelligent and well-schooled people can be poor managers, bad decision makers, and indecisive leaders. They can be narcissistic and passive-aggressive. They can be impervious to constructive criticism. Indeed, these are the very qualities that have tripped up the president. And very smart people, come to think of it, may be susceptible to many of these faults because they believe theyre so darn smart.
And finally, as Ronald Reagan said, The trouble with our liberal friends isnt that they are ignorant; it is that they know so much that isnt so. In other words, they have a set of views at odds with the way the world operates (meekness will endear us to our enemies, terrorists will be impressed with American legal procedures), the American political scene (the public wanted a lurch to the Left), and basic economic realities (you can load mandates and taxes on employers without impacting employment). These views are a great impediment to a successful presidency.
This isnt an argument against smart or well-educated people being president. But it is a reminder that being so darn smart isnt everything, and in Obamas case, it seems not to have gotten him very far. But he has time. Maybe with experience, hell wise up.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/17/2009 09:05 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"The trouble with our liberal friends isn't that they are ignorant; it is that they know so much that isn't so."
#2
Try this: in matters of leadership, statecraft and governance, Obama is not clever or capable.
Leadership: he can't prioritize to save his life. He has pursued five major, world-changing initiatives-- HC, energy, stim, mideast PeaceInOurTime, GoldmanSachs financial-sector rescue-- any one of which would consume most of the energy and bandwidth of an administration, and without exception he and his team have botched them all.
Statecraft: the man seriously believes that placing a "Kick Me" sign on his back will induce other nations to adopt policies favorable to our interests. In return he's been humiliated, publicly and repeatedly, by the leadership of Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Great Britain, France, and now China. He has insulted and demoralized our friends and given encouragement to our enemies.
Governance: he and his Chicago bully boys have repeatedly intervened to protect their cronies at Government Sachs and their shock troops at the Service Employees International Union. Their stimulus program has done zip to create private sector jobs while it cements and builds on the huge increase in unproductive unionized public sector employment that has ruined California and is trashing other states' fiscal fortunes as well.
The man is worse than Carter. 2012 can't arrive soon enough.
#4
My fear is not that this is a valid criticism of Zero, but that it's NOT.
What if instead of ignorance about economic realities, foreign affairs or legal procedures Zero is, in fact, evidencing a complete disdain and contempt for all of these things because they interfere with his TRUE agenda which is to fashion a neo-fascist dictatorship in the US?
#5
Hint - he's not that smart. Start with that premise, and much of the rest is self-explanatory.
PS Hint - he's not even particularly clever, and what credentials does he really have, I mean really (i.e. anything after about age 30, say).
PPS Hint with bonus ironic trivia - How much doeshe owe to the tobacco industry, by which I mean if he ever kicks the habit, what happens to the fabulous baritone timbre? Nobody sounds like John Wayne nowadays cause nobody smokes like John Wayne nowadays. His one throwback trait adds how much to the message?
#6
There is a difference between elequence, smarts and leadership.
One can sometimes cover for the other two... but only for a very short time (as in OBumble's case)
Occasionally (as in Biden's case) one can 'fake' all three - for an even shorter period.
OBumble's problem is that he believes all the Bullshit said about him.
He really believes he's 'the one he has been waiting for'.
#7
He is the one our home grown commies rejoice in... however, they neglect the fact that the USSR no longer exists so there is nobody to reward them for their subversion.
#8
evidencing a complete disdain and contempt for all of these things because they interfere with his TRUE agenda which is to fashion a neo-fascist dictatorship in the US?
Posted by AlanC
It's too late for someone to acquire experience (the 'knowledge or street smarts') when they reach that level. They have to lead with the experience they have.
This president was sold to the public by the MSM. They are just now finding out how much that bill-of-goods is worth.
#11
I don't think he's dumb by a long shot but I think all the brilliant Obama stuff is nonsense. He agrees with what lefties are saying and so by saying he's smart they are also saying they themselves are smart. Then the echo chamber gets going on fixing things with their smart solutions which do damage.
#14
Democratic presidential candidates are always labeled "smart". Its just part of the background music at the DNC. This guy, O no, looks like an Affirmative Action product, with great looking credentials and no class at all.
Is it true that he could not pass a background check to be hired as an FBI agent or Secret Service agent?
#15
He reminds me of a thing my mom used to say..."book smart but life stupid". As in, yeah...you got a bunch of A's back in college, but you couldn't find your way out of a paper bag without a lot of help.
No doubt he is "smart". Unfortunately, he's not running an Ivy League school.
#18
Well then, he's dumb and a traitor and born in Nova Scotia? And managed to keep it all very quiet? Who's the puppet master? The lizards underneath Denver International or the Bilderburgers?
Perhaps he was just a poor choice by a disaffected electorate? Naw....
#20
NEWSMAX > [David Limbaugh]OBAMA'S THIRD WORLD VISION FOR AMERICA;
versus
CHINESE MIL FORUM > ANALYSIS: OBAMA'S CHINA TRIP SHOW POWER SHIFTING [IIUC firstly towards rough US-CHIN PARITY, later de facto CHIN SUPERIORITY]???
SAME CMF > CHINA'S NEW MISSLES TO CREATE A "NO GO ZONE" AGZ US FLEET [DF-21A LR Anti-Ship/Naval BMS > 1500-KM range, 3000-km Radar Range].
* PAKISTANI DEFENCE FORUM > RUSSIA TO RESTORE KIROV-CLASS NUCLEAR CRUISERS [Battle Cruiser > RUSS proclaims need of 2-3 KIROVS for various LR Operations]
UV "MOTHER SHIP" + "ARSENAL/FIRE SHIP" > in far futue [ > Year 2100] the SEA-BORNE AIRCRAFT CARRIER may yet merge wid the submerisble SUBMARINE + SURFACE WARFARE + ORBITAL DESIGNS???
#21
My take:
He is not exceptionally smart. Many of us probably got better test scores, grades, etc.
But he's smart enough to be President (though below average compared to past presidents). That's not his problem.
The problem is that temperment, character, energy, patriotism and executive leadership skill are more important than intelligence above a threshhold value. He lacks executive experience even if his 'cool' temperment and energy level might be suitable and his personal character (he seems disciplined and a good family man) are OK. I also think his patriotism is an issue. It is not that he dislikes America, but he has grown up with and internalized foreign criticisms of the country he now leads. I personally believe Bill Clinton grew more patriotic in office, so there is hope. Nothing like dealing with foreign dirt bags (vs. 'experiencing' other countries through travel) to realize how exceptional America is.
As a rightwinger who happens to have mostly left wing friends I am always fascinated by how they value perceived or actual raw intelligence over other traits in a President. It cracked me up how they were obsessed with President Bush's alleged stupidity instead of merely disagreeing with his policies. This obsession with 'intelligence' is so critical on the left that Al Gore and John Kerry both resisted releasing academic info because they revealed they actually got worse grades and test scores that the supposed ignoramus they were running against. I have read that this is the only plausible reason Kerry did not release his full service record.
Days after announcing another huge layoff, Al Gore's Current TV referred to former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as a "Gun-Ho" and a "TWILF."
In the end, this was just a lot of conservative bashing in very bad taste, especially the shot of Palin's Twitter page and her astonishingly offensive screen name "Gun-Ho". Easy boy, try not to pass out. Breathe into the bag, now.
After Palin tweeted, Brian Williams of NBC's "Nightly News" reported it as the "Top Story," and in the right of the screen was the word "twilf" with a question mark after it.
This appears to either be a take on the acronym MILF with the "TW" standing for "Twitterer," or an urban dictionary reference way too disgusting to address. Do share . . . .
Regardless, is that what a former Vice President and Nobel Laureate believes is acceptable to call a former Governor and vice presidential candidate? What's so wrong? IWTFHT! >:-}
Lest we not forget the vulgar attack on Beck at the end. One of those they fear the most, I guess.
And these folks wonder why they're continually having to lay people off! That's because they're cut from the same cloth as the staff at the NYSlimes.
Rest, including video, at link. RTWT and enjoy! :-)
#2
The left's PDS (Palin Derangement Syndrome) borders on being paranoid. If, as the left claims, Palin is of no consequence; why do they pay so much attention to her.
As an aside, I heard someone suggest "Cheney/Palin in 2012". Not a bad idea.
HAVING PASSED a health reform bill that is, at least theoretically, paid for, the House of Representatives is poised this week to blow a quarter-trillion-dollar hole in the federal budget involving, you guessed it, health care. This is the so-called doc fix, to prevent scheduled cuts in Medicare reimbursements to physicians from taking effect.
Say you are a member of Congress who agrees that the cuts should be rescinded -- that physician payments shouldn't be reduced, that is -- but also believes that the payments should not add to the national debt? Under the rule governing the House debate, you won't be allowed to suggest any offsetting savings. Either you go for the doc fix and add massively to the deficit, or you torpedo the fix and wreak havoc in the Medicare program, with a 21 percent cut set to take effect Jan 1. Nice choice. It puts those who believe in both fiscal responsibility and averting these draconian cuts in an impossible situation.
By the way, don't be fooled by the incredible shrinking "cost" of the fix. The official Congressional Budget Office estimate used to be $245 billion over 10 years. Now it's $210 billion. In fact, the real hit to the budget will be closer to $300 billion. The lower CBO numbers stem primarily from the administration's move to change the rules about which physician payments are subject to the cuts. The administration proposed a regulation to exempt drugs administered in doctor's offices, such as chemotherapy, from the spending ceiling. That has the effect of making the cost of the fix look smaller, but it doesn't change the ultimate drain on the treasury: Medicare will end up paying out the same amount of money.
All of this is, to some degree, Medicare kabuki to placate the American Medical Association. The Senate doesn't have the votes to pass a permanent fix without paying for it -- though, of course, it also doesn't have the votes actually to pay for it. So while the House might pass the unpaid-for fix, it will likely die there. The result will be another year-long, or possible two-year, patch slapped on this mess. Finding the money to pay for the fix and, more to the point, cobbling together the political coalition to support it, is difficult. Which is why Congress and the administration have joined hands in the pretense that the doc fix has nothing whatsoever to do with health reform.
#1
I wonder if this is the same bill my Congressman is being cheered for passing? His bill, according to the AFL-CIO, was to cap insurance company charges.
How could that cost money, AFL-CIO? Color me skeptical. I e-mailed my Congreesman urging him to repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which I learned about at Rantburg, as a better route to lower costs.
Posted by: Bobby ||
11/17/2009 7:30 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Oncologists and cardiologists take the biggest hit if the cuts aren't rescinded. My liberal oncology and cardiology colleagues can't quite make the connection between this and what ObumbleCare is going to be -- yo guys, our payments will go down, down, down each and every year. Someone has to pay for all those boards and committees, and it's going to be us.
They don't get it yet. By the time they do it'll be too late.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/17/2009 12:40 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Gee Steve, when you put it that way, CommieCare almost seems attractive.
Posted by: ed ||
11/17/2009 12:45 Comments ||
Top||
There was a time in America when the typical union member was a blue-collar guy sweating in a Pittsburgh steel mill, screwing together Chevies in Detroit or loading and unloading ships on the San Francisco docks. But things are radically different today because Joe Lunchpail has been replaced by white-collar Todd and Margo Yuppiecrat processing Social Security checks in Baltimore, conducting environmental audits in Denver or keeping the lines moving at the Department of Motor Vehicles. The breakdown of union membership make this change clear: Only 7.3 percent of all private sector employees are union members, while 37.6 percent of all government workers are unionized. Fifty-one percent of all union members are government workers.
As the Heritage Foundation's James Sherk points out, these numbers ought to be red flags for taxpayers because "government employees don't strike to get higher wages from a private business -- they strike to get higher wages from you."
"Their pay is funded through your tax dollars," he adds. "For government employee union members to get more, your taxes need to go up. So that is what unions now lobby for." And as with so much else in this country, Sherk cautions that what is happening on the West Coast is likely a portent of disturbing things to come for the rest of us:
* In Oregon, public employee unions are funding ballot initiatives to raise personal income and business taxes in order to protect gold-plated medical benefits from state spending reductions.
* In California, the Service Employees International Union spent at least $1 million on a massive television ad campaign demanding that desperate state government officials raise oil, gas and liquor taxes instead of cutting spending.
These actions point to the hard reality that the interests of government employee unions are fundamentally opposed to the interests of taxpayers. The unions are serving their own members, while the government officials who oversee them are serving the public, which usually means delivering the most efficient service at the lowest possible cost.
These diverging interests are perfectly illustrated at the federal level by the political endorsements of the American Federation of Government Employees, which actively backed Barack Obama. For his part, the president is now pushing federal spending to unprecedented heights while expanding the federal work force and working with Congress to raise taxes. Between elections, AFGE, along with other federal employee unions like the National Treasury Employees Union and the National Federation of Federal Employees, constantly lobby Congress against any proposal to rein in the spiraling compensation costs of the federal civil service. Hard-pressed taxpayers shouldn't have to fight tax-happy congressmen and greedy government worker unions at the same time.
Public service employees should be forced to bargain as 92.7 percent of the work force does -- in a way that recognizes the best interests of both sides and does not assume that government is a Daddy Warbucks with limited resources.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/17/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Lets not forget the Teacher's union.
Personally I think unions (all unions) should be banned from *all* political activities (contributions, phone banks, workers, etc...). Its simply not their job.
#2
I agree. Union members as individuals can do whatever they want, I have no problem with that, but the union should not be allowed to engage in political activities. At the very least they should lose their tax exempt status.
I find it difficult to believe that a union that donates 99% to Democrats has 99% Democrat membership. Use of dues for political contributions should be prohibited. I have no problem with a union setting up a PAC and ONLY donating from the PAC from voluntary member contributions but I have a serious problem with using any resource paid for with dues for political activity.
That means no use of union facilities, equipment, infrastructure, etc. Not even a union telephone line.
The PAC can rent their own office and buy their own phone lines, computers, etc.
#3
Lets make Unions just as culpable as corporations.
Meaning that if a teacher goes and molests kids the school district can be sued - but so can the union.
If a machinist screws up a part and an airliner goes down killing everyone - the Union can be sued for that too.
In short make them responsible for the quality of their workers.
Right now they have all the benefits (fees) and none of the responsibilities.
#4
As a gubbamint engineer, I work in a closed shop, meaning I have to join the union's bargaining unit, i.e.: pay basic union dues to cover their labor negotiations for wages and cafeteria benefit package (health ins., etc.). I can opt-out of paying the higher dues figure that contributes $ to the PAC, and I do, since they don't represent my political views very well. We are also prohibited from striking and would likely lose our jobs if we did...We lost 6% last year and it will be years before we see any wage increases - more likely the furloughs and givebacks will continue for the next 2 or more years. Layoffs are coming. Civil Service with classified employee positions were devised to prevent patronage and corruption. Just the way it is...the alternative is Chicago writ large
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/17/2009 9:53 Comments ||
Top||
#5
We are also prohibited from striking and would likely lose our jobs if we did...
In Michigan, the public employees unions are prohibited by law from striking. However, judges are reluctant to enforce the law due to the threat of having the unions against them come election time. No one ever loses their job and strikes occur with semi-regularity.
In my previous post, I listed some (but far from all) of the practical problems presented by trying in a civil criminal court an individual (1) who was captured overseas, (2) had evidence against him collected using covert means, with (3) no chain of evidence or custody, and (4) was harshly and physically interrogated with (5) all witnesses and methods being secret.
The greatest danger posed in the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) isnt that he will go free. The greatest danger is that he will be convicted and that during his appeals the courts will ratify all of the extraordinary measures used to capture and convict him. The great danger is that the courts will ratify the rough, inaccurate and ambiguous norms of martial law as applying to all civil criminal trials.
After a couple of decades of these court decisions reverberating throughout the legal system, we could end up living under de facto martial law. Rest at link
Posted by: ed ||
11/17/2009 09:18 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Ms. Love has clearly identified a judicial wrecking ball. If KSM gains acquittal, America loses. If KSM is convicted, America loses as well. Barry and Holder have played this one very well indeed.
#2
Just remember the legal caste has made it possible. Justice Kennedy et al have spent their energies to imprint civilian 'rights' and processes to military tribunals and unlawful combatants during this war even though prior precedent did not.
The socia!ist are allowing the system to destroy itself. The legal caste, like the scorpion, can't help itself. Their addiction to stick their fingers (power) into every act of the society and impose their concept of what society should be is never ending.
The Matthew Alexander story, writer of How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
A seventeen year veteran of CNN claimed Sunday that Lou Dobbs' surprising exit from the network was because "his opinions are out of lockstep with the rest of the mainstream news media."
Plante marvelously responded, "Yes, I am."
Days after announcing another huge layoff, Al Gore's Current TV referred to former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as a "Gun-Ho" and a "TWILF."
In the end, this was just a lot of conservative bashing in very bad taste, especially the shot of Palin's Twitter page and her astonishingly offensive screen name "Gun-Ho".
