Bear problems

[FrommerStop]

This is where Stand Your Ground comes in handy. If the bear hits or bite you, THEN you can shoot it

Self defense is a legal reason to kill a bear. I am not sure about stand your ground. apparently the bear has more of a right to be in your garage or bed room according to the FWC than you do from the way they act.

 

[FLT]

FWC , is what occurs when you put city folks in charge of country things. They truly are clueless.

 

[Duckyou]

This is where Stand Your Ground comes in handy. If the bear hits or bite you, THEN you can shoot it

be careful of the castle doctrine - You may be in his house.

 

[fl57caveman]

Maybe,just maybe the bear is a Trump supporter. Some folks should be neutered , this Karen would be one of those folks.

oh give me a break,.....

trump sticker, or no trump sticker, i find a bear in my house, he better be a cartoon yogi or booboo, or he is a dead bear

 

[big jon]

Not just the big collars with transmitters that send vitals .All adult bears are chipped unless they miss one, that's trans dermal

 

[big jon]

I sugest you use your hide away gun or prison shank

 

[FrommerStop]

Not just the big collars with transmitters that send vitals .All adult bears are chipped unless they miss one, that's trans dermal

So you are saying that just about all of the 4000 plus bears have been captured at one time and chipped. Where did you learn about this?

 

[big jon]

what do you think the state agency's are doing with all that tax money ?4000 bears someone counted them ? seems like your answering your own question . do I know if all the bears are chiped or wearing transmitters I know that many or most are and it stands to reason if they have a count on them they have had the opportunity to tag them
I know that they have software that shows location and chip id numbers and i know with map quest i can look only so close at someones back yard and the government can look as close as they want to

 

[big jon]

go out side look up see all those satellites. you don't believe they see you and can identify you

 

[FrommerStop]

go out side look up see all those satellites. you don't believe they see you and can identify you

So the satellites have facial recognition. that is why I have this special hat

 

[big jon]

I like your little smart ass tin foil bear ,if you want to ignore common well know facts that's fine with me
if your trying to engage in a devils advocate conversation that's fine too
I think ive had as much conversation as I wish with you and no longer wish to cast my pearls
I might further note that your attempt at humor by the use of the little bear picture and the suggestion of a paranoia is insulting I take it that way.
in colloquial terms I think your an ass which kind and of what location matters not to me just that I thought your age and maturity were greater than you've shown I draw that it must be a personality trait since im a grown up and dont wish to waste my time with yourself and we cant really look each other in the eye to insult each other i consider any future conversation unnecessary
if you wish i can tell you were ill be set up at the next gun show and you can come insult me in person should you wish
otherwise good nite

 

[MarkS]

They might not have trackers on all the bears but there’s enough that have them to make me leery


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[FrommerStop]

They might not have trackers on all the bears but there’s enough that have them to make me leery


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would be happier if they did and were keeping better track of them.
I am trying to find some reliable source of information. Not much on the internet that I have found yet.

 

[Raven]

The penalties are less than they were. https://www.flrules.org/gateway/ruleno.asp?id=68A-1.004&Section=0

The hell I'm going toe to toe against a furry ass tank with a paintball gun

 

[Raven]

I like your little smart ass tin foil bear ,if you want to ignore common well know facts that's fine with me
if your trying to engage in a devils advocate conversation that's fine too
I think ive had as much conversation as I wish with you and no longer wish to cast my pearls
I might further note that your attempt at humor by the use of the little bear picture and the suggestion of a paranoia is insulting I take it that way.
in colloquial terms I think your an ass which kind and of what location matters not to me just that I thought your age and maturity were greater than you've shown I draw that it must be a personality trait since im a grown up and dont wish to waste my time with yourself and we cant really look each other in the eye to insult each other i consider any future conversation unnecessary
if you wish i can tell you were ill be set up at the next gun show and you can come insult me in person should you wish
otherwise good nite

If a space scope can see a star in a galaxy five gazillion light years away, then you can bet your bacon that it can read your face

 

[SAWMAN]

big jon, your right . . . --- SAWMAN

 

[FrommerStop]

If a space scope can see a star in a galaxy five gazillion light years away, then you can bet your bacon that it can read your face

Does anyone have specific information on this. 'bet your bacon" is not sufficient. I briefly searched and could not confirm facial recognition and if such resolutions exist it is not widely known. We do have a lot of military people and they may have worked with NASA or such and actually know what they are talking about. It could be classified information. One such as me can never say never since the world is a big place and a mere civilian may not know such things.

Many published satellite photos are apparently enhanced with aerial photographs is what I read and this may be confusing people. In the past when I was using aerials that are available to anyone for some work, one could see utility poles and the shadows that they cast.

A space telescope is something else. Are these being directed towards earth. These telescopes have the highest resolution of anything out there that could be in the sky.
What I find says they can not be used to observed earth and resolution is at 11.811 inches and if true that will not cut it for facial recognition.

| EarthSky

What if you could point the Hubble Space Telescope downward, toward Earth. What would it see?

earthsky.org

If the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) could observe Earth from its orbit 570 kilometers (350 miles) above Earth’s surface, it would in theory be able to see objects as small as 0.3 meters (30 centimeters). But it’s not possible to turn the telescope in an Earth-observing direction. Here’s why.

First, the brightness of Earth would damage the instruments aboard the telescope.

Second, HST would have to look down through the atmosphere, which would blur the images and make the actual resolution or sharpness of the Earth images worse than theory suggests.

Finally, the HST orbits the Earth at a speed (27,000 kilometers per hour or 17,000 miles per hour). Its speed in orbit above Earth is so fast that any image it took would be blurred by the motion.

There are put high enough to avoid the atmosphere and its distortion for space observations.
For what is normally directed towards earth what I saw was 5-6 inches for resolution and somewhere that 2.4 inches might be possible.

The Hubble Space Telescope (often referred to as HST or Hubble) is a space telescope that was launched into low Earth orbit in 1990 and remains in operation. It was not the first space telescope, but it is one of the largest and most versatile, well known both as a vital research tool and as a public relations boon for astronomy. The Hubble telescope is named after astronomer Edwin Hubble and is one of NASA's Great Observatories, along with the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory, the Chandra X-ray Observatory, and the Spitzer Space Telescope.[7]

Hubble features a 2.4-meter (7.9 ft) mirror, and its four main instruments observe in the ultraviolet, visible, and near-infrared regions of the electromagnetic spectrum. Hubble's orbit outside the distortion of Earth's atmosphere allows it to capture extremely high-resolution images with substantially lower background light than ground-based telescopes. It has recorded some of the most detailed visible light images, allowing a deep view into space. Many Hubble observations have led to breakthroughs in astrophysics, such as determining the rate of expansion of the universe.

 

[Duckyou]

FYI - sub dermal “trackers” do not broadcast out locations. If used in bears they have to be read up close.

Just like a tag on a dog.

These are not practical for most wildlife tagging. Exterior tags identifiable from a distance are better as researchers can identify and record information without sedating the animal.

If a bear has a satellite or even a radio tracker - You will see it.

 

[FrommerStop]

Below are theoretical calculations for facial recognition under a set of ideal highly optimistic conditions. If you have different calculations or see errors in what is below please comment.

https://space.stackexchange.com/que...ood-enough-to-make-out-a-person-on-the-ground

let's first see what's the absolute minimum resolution we'd require to recognize facial features and successfully identify individuals. According to this article, to do that, we'd need to resolve a human face to a resolution of at least 40x40 pixels. So if we say that an average adult human face is 20 cm wide, we should resolve to within 5 mm. At also extremely low LEO orbits that might be used by some surveying satellites, say 200 km above the surface of the Earth during perigee of highly elliptical Molniya orbits, this gives us a required angular resolution of 3.0⋅10−8 rad, or 0.00618794419 arc
(in radians and arcseconds, respectively).


Using Dawes' limit, we can then calculate theoretical minimum telescope's aperture (in centimeters):

Or roughly 18.7 m (738 inch, 61.5 ft, 20.5 yard) diameter telescope. Not impossible, but such huge telescope would certainly be visible even with a naked eye (remember, that's minimum diameter, it would be by far taller than that) if it caught reflection, and that's usually not an option with military spy satellites we might not be aware of, while there certainly aren't any such commercial and/or scientific telescopes in orbit.

Considering I took the most extreme and ideal case examples into consideration for the sake of argument, and the numbers are an order of magnitude smaller than what David Hammen came out with in his answer because of that, the answer is still:

No, there is no such optical telescope in Earth's orbit with required resolution to identify individuals by their facial features. If it was, we'd know about it.

One thing that shouldn't be forgotten is that satellites can't simply change orbits and be at any place and at any time they'd need to be, to track and identify individuals even if they could do that by their facial features alone. If someone is going to put so capable optical equipment in the skies, it would more likely be on inconspicuously painted blimps / aerostats that could silently hover at a lot smaller altitudes, image targets from a shallow angle, and follow their movement easier. And all of that with a lot cheaper, smaller and harder to notice equipment. Or use helicopters, drones, CCTV,... or good old boots on the ground.

 

[Viking1204]

I doubt that most bears are monitored electronically and likely many are not tagged at all. When people have problem with bears, the FWC seems to have no idea of what bear it was. and when a bear is found dead, it is not because the FWC came looking for it.
They do not even have an exact count on the bear pop and it is an estimate.

You sure about that? Any pics I've got of bears they've been tagged, examples below.