I do not think that it was a good decesion to take the bear with that many people around. What if the bear would have been wounded and charged the wildlife watchers? It turned out to be a small incident, but at the same time it could have had very adverse affects on the outdoor sporting community.

Safety is the main issue here. I do take offense when people are taking pictures of wildlife. I, being amish, believe that taking pictures takes away part of the soul. I wish people would be more considerate of my views when I am trying to hunt. People need to be more ethical with their photography skills. kidding.

I agree with the safety concerns above and if this was at a well frequented overlook it seems in general poor taste. To play devil's advocate, at what point do our rights to our pursuit come into play? If your favorite hunting spot attracted some bird watchers across the valley this fall and old mossy horns wanders in front of you at a great distance and not at all in line with the watchers, but in a perfect shot for you, do you hold your shot becuase they may be enjoying the sight of this animal? Do wildlife viewers have a better claim to wildlife than hunters. I've never seen anyone pay money for a wildlife watching stamp that funds the state or federal programs. I think this is unfortunate PR, but I also don't see how it's persecutable if, other than the presence of onlookers (unless at a dangerous range) an animal is fair game pursued in fair chase.

It was a poor decision to shoot a bear in a location where Federal rules prohibit the shooting of the bear.

The wildlife watchers? F**k 'em. None of 'em would raise an objection were it wolves tearing apart an elk.

At what point do the ecoterrorists discover that they can interfere with hunters' activities by "watching" wildlife. Sorry, but the watchers were in the hunters' territory, in season - they should've known better. As Mike Diehl said, "F**k'em."

I thought I’d chime in a little with a quick follow up to the story. It appears a (federal) Kenai National Wildlife Refuge enforcement officer cited at least one of the two hunters for discharging a firearm along that portion of the highway. I believe the maximum penalty is $150.

I’ve also read where the Fish & Wildlife service is still investigating the incident, but as far as the state is concerned, the matter is closed. In fact, Alaska state troopers were on the scene when the hunters shot the bear but said they’re not pressing charges or conducting any investigation because no laws were broken.

Just more food for thought.

So...what, every time I try to take a shot at an animal, and some idiot wants to take pictures of it, I'm supposed to ease my weapon down and pass on the shot? Wouldn't that give precedent to every pot-smoking, tree-hugging, hippie liberal asshat the means to passively end hunting? What if every one of these asshats decides, "Hey, we should take our cameras out into the woods and take pictures of deer, during hunting season, so those nasty hunters can't shoot them, because someone, somewhere passed a law that says you can't take game if someone else is observing said game?"

What a bunch of morons. I would have taken that bear if there weren't any restrictions. However, discharging a firearm in a prohibited area does warrant a citation. And why are there picture takers in the woods anyway, during hunting season? Here where I am in NY, the state lands are closed to non-hunters during hunting season. Of course, there are those that will violate that law and go into the woods to disturb people's hunts, in which case, a simple phone call to the DEC will get these people cited and/or arrested.

I agree with you OrangeNeck (nice name). I am starting to feel like hunters are being told by people (hunters and non-hunters) that we should be ashamed of our sport and hide what we do. People need to deal with it. If people don't want to see it, do what you would do if you saw a fat guy at a nude beach, turn away. He has every right to be there so go somewhere else if it bothers you. Hunters own the forest, same as everybody else.

Not sure where I stand on this. Legally, it appears that the only thing that the bear shooters did wrong was break a law so obscure that the troopers patrolling that stretch of road weren't even aware existed.

Would I have shot the bear in front of picture taking "wildlife watchers?" Probably not.

But when do the rights of wildlife watchers take precedent over those of hunters, who support said wildlife through fees for licenses and permits along with taxes on hunting equipment?

OrangeNeckInNY,
Sorry to say, but State land in NY isn't closed to non-hunters during hunting seasons, unless you are referring to a specific area I'm not aware of.
Hunter harassment is illegal, but hikers, mountain bikers, and even horseback riders (on some trails), etc. get to be out there as well.

It seems to me that, regardless of who is right or wrong, the antis will use this incident against us hunters- all because someone made a mistake he or she may not have been aware of. And that just sickens me that there are people who will do that to take away our freedom to hunt.

Bad taste. Makes hunters look bad. For me, it is somewhat akin to putting a carcass on your car hood or putting a picture of the inside of the deer in the newspaper. It does nothing for hunters reputation and I believe that it is downright disrespectful As hunters we always ask for respect from non-hunters and antis, but this is a case of hunters disrespecting the rights of those not looking to harvest game but merely to enjoy it. It is true that we have the freedom to hunt, but others also have the right to enjoy wildlife in their own way. I am glad that there was a citation issued.

On a brighter note, Alabama bow season opens the 15th. happy hunting down in dixie.