Finally, after dasy of waiting, a person contacted the Bear Center through an e-mail, and stated he that had passed up Jo and her cub and Ursula and her two cubs - bears whose GPS locations showed them at his bait - but he didn’t mention Lily or say whether or not he had killed Hope. Later on he admitted to killing Hope. e

While this seems to imply that this person was not looking to kill young bears (as in cubs), and that he was kind enough to pass up shooting a sow with cubs, it is standard hunting ethics that you do not shoot a female game animal that still has her young with her, because the young still need nutrition from their mother (as in milk), and guidance (so they learn how to survive) on how to live in a harsh wilderness environment.

So, this hunter did not do anything heroic when he passed up sows with cubs, he just followed one of the rules of hunter ethics. But, he did turn around and shoot a yearling female bear.

If this hunter had talked to Dr. Rogers in the past (Dr. Rogers says he has talked to this hunter in the past), he knew that the area he wanted to set up in was within the home range of at least three radio collared bears, not just two radio collared bear, but two female radio collared bears, which each had cubs, and one of them having a yearling cub. If he got enough information from Dr. Rogers, he would also know that there were also 1-2 other yearlings in the area, both of which were males, and three adult males. He also probably knew that hunting ethics frowned on killing female bears with cubs. That left him with the possibility of killing three adult males, two yearling male and one female yearling (because Hope was not wearing a collar.

So – lets look at some facts as we know them. And do some deductive reasoning:

A hunter admits to shooting a 1-year-old female black bear near the feeding stations with Lily and Hope’s home range. He claims he did not know it was Lily. As I outlined in my last post, no matter what some people say, I think there are way too many indicators that show this to be a purposeful killing. I just do not see how - with all the publicity this has received, in hunting publications, including magazines and newspapers, in this blog, on 3-4 pages on Facebook, including the Lily the Black Bear page, Lily; Bear with a Bounty page, and my own Protect Minnesota's Research Bears page, and on several TV stations in Minnesota - that this hunter either did not know he was setting up within Lily and Hope’s home range, where the bears most likely to come in to a bait station, would be Lily with her cub, and Hope, a one-year-old bear; or that this hunter could not tell that Lily was a female.

So – taking all that information into account we can conclude:

that - any hunter(not necessarily a black bear hunter) would know that the units around Ely contained bears that were being researched, and that those bears were accustomed to humans and food scraps more than most bears, and that the bears most likely to come into a new food source were juveniles (1-3 year olds), because juveniles are not with their mothers (who might warn them away from a new food source, or they might have trouble finding food because they are not with their mother),and that the probability of a one-year-old bear coming into a bait station in that area would be Hope was high, and that the probability that any female yearling to come to a bait station in that are was extremely high.

and - this hunter purposefully moved from another area to the area that contained the home ranges of at least three radio collared females, including Lily and Hope's home range,

and - that hunting ethics hold that shooting a cub (under one year) or a sow with cubs - is taboo

then - the only conclusion we can come up with is that - this hunter moved to the Ely area in order to be within a famous research bear's home range, where he expected to see a one-years-old famous black bear, that was accustomed to seeing, hearing and smelling humans, an accustomed to being fed by them (making it easy to bait and to kill)

and - that he intended to kill that black bear named Hope.- for some yet unknown reason (I'm not buying the "they taste better" explanation, because I do not know a bear hunter, who is not looking for a large bear with a great pelt, or a record book bear). Besides, I do not think they taste all that good. And I know other hunters who feel the same way.

If this hunter sincerely did not want to shoot Hope, all he had to do was not shoot any yearling bear that came to his bait station. It was that simple. I’ve been told that this hunter is a seasoned hunter, who should know how to sex a bear, and that he saw Hope at approximately 7:05 PM, which would leave him with enough light to shoot the bear, or he would not have shot it in the first place. So, he should have known it was a female yearling black bear that he was looking at, and he went ahead and shot it. If he is a seasoned hunter, who knew there were yearling males in the are, and 2-3 adult boars, then why didn’t he wait to see if he could get one of them to come to his bait?

I cannot believe that he did not know which bear he was shooting, or who it was.


Other Notes:

One paragraph on an update page from the WRI website may tell us a different story than the politically correct one we are getting in the other media.

The only reason I can think of that they do not want anyone expressing their feelings is because some people at the WRI might feel the same way, and do not want those types of feelings posted – because they might create friction and animosity between the WRI and the hunter, and between bear admirers and hunters in general. What they are saying is, "please do not stir the pot" no matter how we feel.


I’m not connected with the WRI, and I have serious doubts that this was an accident, because the facts just do not add up. This makes me very angry. – If the hunter did not want to take the chance of shooting Hope, he would not have killed any 1-2 years old bear near his bait station – but he did. I do not believe this was an accident, no matter what he wrote to the WRI.


A lady e-mailed me this evening, and stated that due to the threats that ha sbeen mde to this hunter, she was concerned for his safety. She then states that she had called the DNR office to inquire whether or not the name of the person was public record, She then states this,

"I called the St. Paul, MN DNR somewhere around 2 pm MN time and a woman answered the phone (after hitting option 4 on their voice recorded phone message). She did not identify herself. I asked her if the hunters name would/could be made public and expressed my worry about the hunter's safety. She assured me the information was private and then proceeded to tell me that the DNR's belief was that Dr. Rogers had shot the bear to gain publicity and monetary gain. She started to laugh and as I felt disheartened by her callousness I just thanked her and hung up.

I'm told other people called to ask the same information from the DNR after I (in very poor judgement) left a message on the Lily A Bear With A Bounty's Facebook page. They, of course, were told that was not the DNR's stance, after what I'm sure, were many phone calls. "


She then stated this,

"I sent an email to and received a response from the NABC about my conversation, but I am left with the sinking feeling that the NABC doesn't truly understand the hostility the DNR holds against Dr. Rogers and his research.

I don't know what, if anything will come of this email, or if anything should come of it, but I did want someone with a bigger voice than me to know what the researchers are up against."


When I asked Dr. Rogers if he knew what some DNR employees thought about him, he said he knew that some of them hated him. There is something wrong if this mentality is pervasive within the DNR. Hopefully something will change the way those DNR employees think of Dr. Rogers, because he is doing important work. .

May Glod bless all of you,





Older Post

Do We Really Need to Hunt?

Newer Post

Did a Hunter Purposely Kill Hope the Black Bear?