Log in:  

Register

Griz Kills Man, Rangers Kill Griz

Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Moderators: peloton, Irondan, Eshnar, Alpe d'Huez, Red Rick, Tonton, Pricey_sky

Re: Re:

09 Sep 2015 18:18

jmdirt wrote: You aren't making accusations, but you are making assumptions.


Quite likely.

I assume they are making judgements based on training, expertise and experience, based on need to balance human and wildlife needs, and in the long-term interest of the park over the interest of any one animal. I'm comfortable with that until someone can show differently, at which point I'm all ears.

If someone can show how what they did was aberrant, wrong, against best practice and/or wholly politically motivated against the best and long-term interest of the park, let's definitely have that discussion. It would doubtless be interesting and fruitful. Haven't heard it, but I keep hearing how it's "political". I don't see evidence that it's overtly or incorrectly political.

EDIT: Only speaking for myself; I'm not saying that there is meddling, I'm saying that the park service is a political body just like any government organization.


I'm sure that's the case. I don't know that this is good or bad. Don't know how you avoid this. Politics is the business of humans interacting at an organizational level. Too much politics is almost always bad. No politics is impossible because various stakeholders have differing interests and they must be reconciled and balanced.

We seem to have forgotten this to some large degree in today's world where certain political viewpoints are immutable and where certain constituencies see compromise as the worst outcome. How's that working out for us? Not well.

Even if Jarvis started out as a park loving ranger, he has no choice but to be a politician in his current position.


Maybe, even probably. Not sure that's a bad thing and definitely not sure it has anything to do with the killing of a bear who ate someone and stored the carcass as meat.

No one has provided any evidence of a connection between overt politicking and this decision, or even connected Jarvis to the decision.

What I do see is people objecting to the killing of the bear and looking for scapegoats because they don't agree with the decision, absent any facts or evidence. I don't think that's a particularly smart, thoughtful or reasonable view.
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,423
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

Re: Re:

09 Sep 2015 19:34

red_flanders wrote:
jmdirt wrote: You aren't making accusations, but you are making assumptions.


Quite likely.

I assume they are making judgements based on training, expertise and experience, based on need to balance human and wildlife needs, and in the long-term interest of the park over the interest of any one animal. I'm comfortable with that until someone can show differently, at which point I'm all ears.

If someone can show how what they did was aberrant, wrong, against best practice and/or wholly politically motivated against the best and long-term interest of the park, let's definitely have that discussion. It would doubtless be interesting and fruitful. Haven't heard it, but I keep hearing how it's "political". I don't see evidence that it's overtly or incorrectly political.

EDIT: Only speaking for myself; I'm not saying that there is meddling, I'm saying that the park service is a political body just like any government organization.


I'm sure that's the case. I don't know that this is good or bad. Don't know how you avoid this. Politics is the business of humans interacting at an organizational level. Too much politics is almost always bad. No politics is impossible because various stakeholders have differing interests and they must be reconciled and balanced.

We seem to have forgotten this to some large degree in today's world where certain political viewpoints are immutable and where certain constituencies see compromise as the worst outcome. How's that working out for us? Not well.

Even if Jarvis started out as a park loving ranger, he has no choice but to be a politician in his current position.


Maybe, even probably. Not sure that's a bad thing and definitely not sure it has anything to do with the killing of a bear who ate someone and stored the carcass as meat.

No one has provided any evidence of a connection between overt politicking and this decision, or even connected Jarvis to the decision.

What I do see is people objecting to the killing of the bear and looking for scapegoats because they don't agree with the decision, absent any facts or evidence. I don't think that's a particularly smart, thoughtful or reasonable view.

I've already typed this once, if Jarvis wasn't part of the decision that is a big problem. I'm starting to think that you are playing devil's advocate just to get me me/others to respond. You haven't offered any evidence that there wasn't a connection between killing this "man eating" bear, and sending a message that "the park is safe so please keep visiting". Also, let me type again, this wasn't in the parking lot of the lodge or at Old Faithful, this was an off trail area.
jmdirt
Member
 
Posts: 1,683
Joined: 06 Dec 2013 17:33

09 Sep 2015 19:56

I'm not playing devil's advocate. I'm simply trying (for the last time) to point out that the burden of evidence is upon those making the claim, not on those asking for evidence of the claim. I would have thought that obvious, common knowledge and fairly unnecessary to point out, but apparently not.

I am making no claims and have no issue with the decision. Therefore, I need not provide any evidence and have repeatedly stated I have no insight into how the decision was made. As I have no insight into whether Jarvis should or shouldn't be involved, as I have no insight into the decision-making process, I won't comment on whether he should have been involved. Not sure how one can come to the conclusion that it's a problem if he wasn't without understanding in some detail how these decisions are made.

People are making the claim that politics is involved. What people are failing to do is describe how politics are involved, how that's a bad thing, and provide any evidence of it. Besides, to paraphrase, stating that "politics exist".

I don't know how to make it any clearer than that, so I'll bow out after this post until someone provides something which might further the discussion.
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,423
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

10 Sep 2015 01:10

Just to add some to this....interesting thread. Bear are usually not aggressive to humans. I've had black, brown, griz bears run from me when they saw me in the forest.
Not all mother bear will attack you with cubs, if they perceive you as a threat yes. I've watched many a cub/mother group from up close. You must be skilled not to get in between mother and cub, that is where issues can arise.

Once a bear conquers a human, they are not really afraid of humans anymore....we stink, make strange noises, are noisy in the woods, and are best avoided by the bear, once they see how easy it is to kill us, then we are not so fearsome anymore...thus the killing of the bear, in this case. Especially in Yellowstone where people are just stupid when it comes to bear.

The hiker was the cause of this, he not skilled, was stupid for not having bear spray on him(or a .44, .357, .40) or both. I always carry bear spray, and a handgun when in the woods(as well as a rifle if I am hunting) for four legged and two legged threats. Nothing wrong with going "off trail' just be prepared and be skilled in hiking. Not sure how old the cubs were, but I guess they were young to leave in the wild, not only did you lose a mommy griz, you lost some cubs out of the wild, may as well say they were killed as well.

Yes bear make a great meal, and my .308 makes me top of the food chain, if I choose to be.(or any other caliber I pull out of the safe), one of my best hunting trips was back home in WV, where I watched a beaver build a dam for 3 days, never took a shot or saw a deer, but that was damned amazing watching the building process.

I think i covered most of the posts.

Yes, I've hunted in Africa as well, I've also hunted poachers over there to help protect the preserve I was paying over 10K to hunt on.
mikeNphilly
Junior Member
 
Posts: 285
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 21:04

10 Sep 2015 01:41

Hmmm maybe the bear is taking out more people than we think

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=29&v=2Gtz6PYLU9I

Over 1400 people missing in national parks...
mikeNphilly
Junior Member
 
Posts: 285
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 21:04

10 Sep 2015 02:21

I called a friend of mine who grew up in Island Park (the Idaho side of Yellowstone), lived here in Boise to go to college and work for a few years only to answer the call of living in Island Park again. He thinks that the guy died and the bears ate his dead body. He said, and I agree, an autopsy might be useless. What if the bear ate all or part of the heart, how would they know if he had a heart attack or not (that's only one ie:)? We need more info to know. He agrees with those who posted about most of the rangers being "park lovers", but thinks that without "pressure from the top" they would have relocated the bear and her cubs. He said that there is discussion about how bear behavior is changing in the Yellowstone region. Maybe we'll read something about that soon...

Interesting Mike! Maybe the bears are eating more of us than we know.
jmdirt
Member
 
Posts: 1,683
Joined: 06 Dec 2013 17:33

10 Sep 2015 19:31

IMO the real reason they killed the bear is to encourage people who might have been dissuaded from coming to the park by showing that the animal that killed a human is dead.' Don't agree though
User avatar Ruby United
Member
 
Posts: 1,159
Joined: 03 Jan 2012 18:16
Location: London

12 Sep 2015 02:10

Bear eat man. Bear like man. City man get out of car to take picture of cute bear. Bear run way fast. Bear get meal. Bear eat man. Bear like man...
User avatar MarkvW
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,090
Joined: 10 Aug 2010 20:13

Re:

12 Sep 2015 02:11

mikeNphilly wrote:Just to add some to this....interesting thread. Bear are usually not aggressive to humans. I've had black, brown, griz bears run from me when they saw me in the forest.
Not all mother bear will attack you with cubs, if they perceive you as a threat yes. I've watched many a cub/mother group from up close. You must be skilled not to get in between mother and cub, that is where issues can arise.

Once a bear conquers a human, they are not really afraid of humans anymore....we stink, make strange noises, are noisy in the woods, and are best avoided by the bear, once they see how easy it is to kill us, then we are not so fearsome anymore...thus the killing of the bear, in this case. Especially in Yellowstone where people are just stupid when it comes to bear.

The hiker was the cause of this, he not skilled, was stupid for not having bear spray on him(or a .44, .357, .40) or both. I always carry bear spray, and a handgun when in the woods(as well as a rifle if I am hunting) for four legged and two legged threats. Nothing wrong with going "off trail' just be prepared and be skilled in hiking. Not sure how old the cubs were, but I guess they were young to leave in the wild, not only did you lose a mommy griz, you lost some cubs out of the wild, may as well say they were killed as well.

Yes bear make a great meal, and my .308 makes me top of the food chain, if I choose to be.(or any other caliber I pull out of the safe), one of my best hunting trips was back home in WV, where I watched a beaver build a dam for 3 days, never took a shot or saw a deer, but that was damned amazing watching the building process.

I think i covered most of the posts.

Yes, I've hunted in Africa as well, I've also hunted poachers over there to help protect the preserve I was paying over 10K to hunt on.


...and bears are way smart.
User avatar MarkvW
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,090
Joined: 10 Aug 2010 20:13

03 Nov 2015 07:00

Interesting. ..... :)
QuizzicalSwin
New Member
 
Posts: 11
Joined: 15 Jul 2015 06:15


Re: Griz Kills Man, Rangers Kill Griz

24 Nov 2016 01:26

bears are living things i respect them as much as humans. that is how my tribe respects these animals. we also carry large caliber rifles, as bears are dangerous. sometimes we kill and eat them..if they threaten us, our village and families. respect.
This Charming Man
Junior Member
 
Posts: 181
Joined: 17 May 2016 02:46

24 Nov 2016 10:18

If your tribe manages to have internet access, something tells me those practices are completely unnecessary.
User avatar BigMac
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,143
Joined: 10 Jun 2013 22:10
Location: Estoril, Portugal

Previous

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

Back to top