But they kill this one...

Makes sense to me, did you guys even bother to read the article? The dead bear was run out of developed areas at least 25 times and now charged a guy and ate his food. A Grizzly that associates humans with food is a mauling waiting to happen. IMO, They did the right thing with this bear and the last one too.
 
Just playing Devil's Advocate here shotgun1- but a sow with cubs is also a mauling (or killing) waiting to happen, as it did last month...

I think they were probably justified in killing this guy- he was obviously a nuissance bear already... And he was frequenting high traffic areas...

I'm more concerned about not being able to watch a bear from your car if it's less than 100 yards...?? What..?? Some idiots climbed on top of their car, and were charged, and now you can't watch them "from the car"..?? That I don't get...


"Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!" 2 Ne. 28: 24
 
IMO both incidents were handled exactly as they should have been. Both articles told exactly what happened and why officials followed the protocol in place at the present time. The big problem is that with the exploding bear population in and around the Parks there is going to be more of these kinds of incidents. The next thing will be that you won't be able to even stop and take a picture of anything when in the Parks! I don't know how they will enforce a 100 yard distance like they just came up with because most of those tourists probably don't have any idea how far that is. The majority of them seem to feel because the animals aren't behind bars like in a zoo that they pose no threat. Many actually approach well within the danger zone to get a nice picture of Joey and Judy with the big bull elk or bison!!!
 
might increase sales of range finders. maybe somebody should market them to tourists lol.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-03-11 AT 04:33PM (MST)[p]After reading the article, it seems like they did an OK job to me.

Where's the waffling, SneakAttack?? Maybe I'm missing something.

What would you have done differently, NONYAMT?

S.

:)

PS: +1 on the .44 mag! ;-)
 
I would have killed the sow that KILLED the first guy,any aggressive bear that shows no fear of humans in a park full of ignorant tourists should be shot.If your going to make it open to people you better do everything you can to keep them safe,most people think its a big zoo and dont realize what they are dealing with.But then again we are talking about the Govt that decided we need to reintroduce wolves and destroy game herds that it took 100 years to build.
 
There is a component of this article that seems VERY out of touch. Check out the following two paragraphs.

WHAT WAS THE GUY SUPPOSED TO DO???

"They advise visitors not to drop their packs or throw them at bears, which risks exposing the animals to human food and isn't always an effective defense.

?In a lot of cases, that pack might help you. If it's on your back, it might just provide another layer of material,? Hottle said."
 
Lets see...Bear 'A' kills a man...sentance...gets off scott free.


Bear 'B' charges a man...get killed.

I understand that Bear 'B' had a history. Any bear that attacks a human, needs to die...better yet, ANY animal that a attacks a human needs to die. I don't care if it has young one around or not.
 
If the Parks people followed what you guys are saying, then either the entire bear population would have to be killed or all human activity would have to be banned from the Parks and you know neither of those is going to happen. Their protocol of what to do with each case is a sound one and a few people need to bone up on bear facts. The sow was just doing what a bear will do in that given situation when a hiker approached to close to her offspring. On the other hand, the latter situation was a problem bear that they really should have euthanized a long time ago, but they gave him several years to change his habits. He went the opposite way of what a wild bear should be doing and finally paid the untimate price for his transgressions. That's what happens when humans encroach in a wild area that is becoming overpopulated with the critters. An educated guess says these attacks will increase in frequency and it's not the fault of the animals. Unless things are changed to include hunting them in the Park to drastically reduce their numbers or greatly limiting human activity, neither of which I see happening in the near future, these occurrences will increase IMO.
 
Every incident should be handled on it's own merits. However, I do agree that problem bears should be removed immediately from further human contact, either by their physical removal or in more serious cases, by their destruction.

Eldorado
 
>Every incident should be handled on
>it's own merits. However, I
>do agree that problem bears
>should be removed immediately from
>further human contact, either by
>their physical removal or in
>more serious cases, by their
>destruction.
>
>Eldorado
+1
If they let a problem bear go they should start holding the feds responsible for anyone killed by that bear,see how many they let walk then.

"I absolutely had my head up my azz "
TOPGUN
 
>I would have killed the sow
>that KILLED the first guy,any
>aggressive bear that shows no
>fear of humans in a
>park full of ignorant tourists
>should be shot.If your going
>to make it open to
>people you better do everything
>you can to keep them
>safe,most people think its a
>big zoo and dont realize
>what they are dealing with.But
>then again we are talking
>about the Govt that decided
>we need to reintroduce wolves
>and destroy game herds that
>it took 100 years to
>build.

To me that would be like destroying a car because a guy was killed when he stepped in front of it. You can't fix stupid. A sow protecting her cub is a natural, normal action. That is what we are trying to preserve in places like Yellowstone: natural and normal wilderness. IMO you have to take the good with the bad.

That persons death was similar to a guy falling off a cliff because he was careless. Should we ban hiking since careless people might get killed?

The proper thing to do is monitor the bear and if she is a constant threat, then dispatch her. Until then, leave her alone.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
Makes perfect sense. Still don't understand the confusion.


Maybe we should all reread the article and just move on.
 
The first bear should have died any bear that kills someone is likely to do it again sow or boar. Ya people are idiots around them nonhunters are usually stupid about bears. Look at that Dbag who thought he was a grizzly he died and did deserve it but this guy that was killed he surprised the bear and I dont know what he could have done too much different i think he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time but like nonyamt said they also thought reintroduction of wolves was great but that bit em in the a55 so in conclusion both bears should be dead.
 
wstrtines---Ever heard of self defense or protecting your family if someone attacks or perceives than as a threat? With your theory and some of the others, I guess they should also be killed for doing what comes naturally---self preservation! That's exactly why the protocol in the Parks is to investigate every incident separately for cause and to go accordingly. As I said, I do have a problem in that they didn't destroy this last 4 year old bear that was hanging around causing problems for quite a while. The way they handled that bear and let it go until it injured the guy a few days ago wasn't correct IMO.
 
Many states have a law called the "one free bite rule" with regard to dog and other domestic animal attacks on humans. Perhaps, the NPS kind of followed this rule with regard the bear they destroyed after numerous encounters with humans. I can tell you that should the sow that killed the hiker in YNP this summer, attack again, I am sure it will be destroyed. I would bet that they have DNA from that sow. I am also betting that the bear biologists in YNP are praying that they never see or hear about that sow again.

Grizzly bears do not co-exist very well with humans. When you combine this with the stupid behavior by humans that you often see in YNP, it is a miracle that many more folks are not mauled or killed by grizzly bears in the park. A lot of these poor folks think that the grizzly bear is just a misunderstood teddy bear. They believe the Charmin commercial about bears wiping or perhaps believe that a grizzly will wrestle you for a beer. I can't count how many amateur photographers I have seen photographing grizzly cubs without any concern for where the mother is.

I have had encounters with grizzly bears and I have a healthy respect for them. It is my observation that we have way too many of them in Wyoming for the system to support. Every week, you read about another problem bear being moved. Usually from some roaded location to another roaded location. They do this because the traps are on wheels. They just dumped one at Milepost 10 on the North Fork Shoshone River (road to East Entrance of YNP). They dumped another a few weeks ago on Reef Creek in the Sunlight. There are drainages in NW Wyoming that are famous dump off zones for problem grizzly bears. Easy road access is part of the criteria. I think Wyoming Game and Fish has or had a site that discloses those trappings and where the bears are moved to.

With the "wolf war" hopefully winding down, I anticipate that the grizzly bear will be up for delisting under the ESA. What a battle that will generate.
 
Any bear that
attacks a human, needs to
die...better yet, ANY animal that
a attacks a human needs
to die. I don't care
if it has young one
around or not.

SneakAttack...SAME PAGE!!!
 

Similar threads

gr8fuldoug
New Winners - New Giveaway
Replies
0
Views
161
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

C3517EBA-76C8-46D1-BF15-56DD138DFB29.jpeg
20230217_114703.jpg
elk3.jpg
IMG_6374.jpeg
20230927_140045.jpg
1116161619.jpg
IMG_20190713_164258513.jpg
IMG_4222.jpeg
CC43C1BD-C9FB-42FC-86D4-AE850A4E7559.png
IMG_5017.jpeg
Buck 3.mov
FB_IMG_1616517585766.jpg
Back
Top Bottom