Griz Kills Man, Rangers Kill Griz

[jmdirt]

The guy knew that there were bears with cubs all over the park. Everyone knows that a Griz with cubs will kill you. As much as I feel bad for the guy's family, I feel bad for the bears too because its their home.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/13/us/yellowstone-grizzly-bear-put-down-hiker-attack-feat/

I've watched them with binocs from my car in Yellowstone, but my closest experience with Griz was at Hughes Meadows in North Idaho. The bears were 500 m away, and I was in a lookout, but every hair on my body was standing straight up! The hike out was terrifying after watching them!

 

[BigMac]

Maniacs, truly unbelievable. Downright imbecilic and irrational. There's only one party to blame, what's even the point in putting the bear down. The bloodthirst and frivolous judgement of some people really leaves you gobsmacked.

 

[May0maniac]

Re:

Maniacs, truly unbelievable. Downright imbecilic and irrational. There's only one party to blame, what's even the point in putting the bear down. The bloodthirst and frivolous judgement of some people really leaves you gobsmacked.

Something similar happened in Trentino last year, a hiker was attacked by a bear with cubs. The guy spotted the cubs and had the great idea to hide in the bushes and tried to observe them.
He was injuried and after the incident loal authorities tried to capture the bear, they used an anaesthetic and the bear died.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/daniza-wild-bear-dies-attempt-capture-italy
Things like that shouldn't happen, people shouldn't be such morons.
On another note, some people really took it way to far after the incident, the guy that got attacked and local authorities got death threads.

 

[Jspear]

As unfortunate as the whole story is, in this case, I think they did the right thing.

"An important fact in the decision to euthanize the bear was that a significant portion of the (hiker's) body was consumed and cached with the intent to return for further feeding," the park said in a media statement. "Normal defensive attacks by female bears defending their young do not involve consumption of the victim's body."

"As managers of Yellowstone National Park, we balance the preservation of park resources with public safety," said Yellowstone National Park Superintendent Dan Wenk. "Our decision takes into account the facts of the case, the goals of the bear management program and the long-term viability of the grizzly bear population as a whole, rather than an individual bear."

 

[BigMac]

In the end, it was the hiker that was where he shouldn't be. I'd maybe understand it the bear was on a ravage spree outside it's natural habitat.

@Mayo thanks for the link.

 

[jmdirt]

Re:

As unfortunate as the whole story is, in this case, I think they did the right thing.

"An important fact in the decision to euthanize the bear was that a significant portion of the (hiker's) body was consumed and cached with the intent to return for further feeding," the park said in a media statement. "Normal defensive attacks by female bears defending their young do not involve consumption of the victim's body."

"As managers of Yellowstone National Park, we balance the preservation of park resources with public safety," said Yellowstone National Park Superintendent Dan Wenk. "Our decision takes into account the facts of the case, the goals of the bear management program and the long-term viability of the grizzly bear population as a whole, rather than an individual bear."

I've done some checking since I read that and it is not uncommon for bears to kill to protect, and then eat to show the cubs "how its done". Is this ranger claiming that this bear, and now her cubs, have the taste for human so they will be more dangerous? "We killed them so the park will be safe." How big can I make the letters "BS"? Every mamma bear in that park will do the same thing.

 

[Jspear]

Re: Re:

As unfortunate as the whole story is, in this case, I think they did the right thing.

"An important fact in the decision to euthanize the bear was that a significant portion of the (hiker's) body was consumed and cached with the intent to return for further feeding," the park said in a media statement. "Normal defensive attacks by female bears defending their young do not involve consumption of the victim's body."

"As managers of Yellowstone National Park, we balance the preservation of park resources with public safety," said Yellowstone National Park Superintendent Dan Wenk. "Our decision takes into account the facts of the case, the goals of the bear management program and the long-term viability of the grizzly bear population as a whole, rather than an individual bear."

I've done some checking since I read that and it is not uncommon for bears to kill to protect, and then eat to show the cubs "how its done". Is this ranger claiming that this bear, and now her cubs, have the taste for human so they will be more dangerous? "We killed them so the park will be safe." How big can I make the letters "BS"? Every mamma bear in that park will do the same thing.

Perhaps they did think that. It's a national park. I'm sure they get scrutinized for everything they do...it's not like they can just kill bears when they want to. There has to be a very good reason to do so. These people most likely aren't savage animal hater/killers....I'm sure they were just looking after the safety of the people who visit the park. Oh, and the cubs weren't killed.

 

[jmdirt]

Re: Re:

As unfortunate as the whole story is, in this case, I think they did the right thing.

"An important fact in the decision to euthanize the bear was that a significant portion of the (hiker's) body was consumed and cached with the intent to return for further feeding," the park said in a media statement. "Normal defensive attacks by female bears defending their young do not involve consumption of the victim's body."

"As managers of Yellowstone National Park, we balance the preservation of park resources with public safety," said Yellowstone National Park Superintendent Dan Wenk. "Our decision takes into account the facts of the case, the goals of the bear management program and the long-term viability of the grizzly bear population as a whole, rather than an individual bear."

I've done some checking since I read that and it is not uncommon for bears to kill to protect, and then eat to show the cubs "how its done". Is this ranger claiming that this bear, and now her cubs, have the taste for human so they will be more dangerous? "We killed them so the park will be safe." How big can I make the letters "BS"? Every mamma bear in that park will do the same thing.

Perhaps they did think that. It's a national park. I'm sure they get scrutinized for everything they do...it's not like they can just kill bears when they want to. There has to be a very good reason to do so. These people most likely aren't savage animal hater/killers....I'm sure they were just looking after the safety of the people who visit the park. Oh, and the cubs weren't killed.

Not yet...

 

[Echoes]

Listen, I can't have enough tears for each and every incident that happen at every corner of the world.

A lion in Zimbabwe, a griz in the US. In Australia, that was a massacre of dingos and it was turned into a film (some people here know I love dingos).

In "Man Bites Dogs", Benoit Poelvoorde argued that the killing of a whale hits the headline because you have Greenpeace and all the ecologists on the spot. However the murder of an old widow anywhere in the world does not make the headline.

A Palestinian baby was burnt alive by Israeli extremists, last month. Nobody got upset here on CN. His life seemed worthless. He was born to a Palestinian, hence Islamic background, so I guess he deserved it according to some...

You can always make tears flow with the killing of a griz but politics is about millions of people. Or should I say millions of ... consciences ... It's not gonna change the face of the world.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

As much as I feel bad for the guy's family

I, not at all! Wherever mankind goes means misery, torched earth, and killings. Shall them all suffer forever. They are not "gods own creature". No, they (mankind) are gods biggest fail.

I feel bad for the bears too because its their home

I fel bad for the bears too. And for nature in general. And for all and everything that has to suffer coz of mankinds ignorance and arrogance.

 

[Archibald]

sounds just like the lunacy over shark culls over here...

the mentality seems to be; if you play on the highway and get hit by a truck, then all trucks should be eradicated from the highway...

then again, human priorities are pretty messed up, as Echoes points out... a couple of surfers get bitten (not killed), so kill all sharks... but meanwhile nationally, nearly 50 women get killed here this year due to domestic violence and all you hear is crickets...

and the stupidest part on the shark issue, is that it's the second time - you'd think they'd learn after the issue in WA, but no, now it's NSW's turn...

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

Re:

In the end, it was the hiker that was where he shouldn't be. I'd maybe understand it the bear was on a ravage spree outside it's natural habitat.

@Mayo thanks for the link.

What exactly did the hiker do? The article didn't mention what the hiker did to get attacked by the bear. For all we know the hiker wasn't doing anything stupid and the bear was simply an especially aggressive one. Maybe the hiker did do something stupid. Maybe he was just unlucky and didn't notice the bear in time.

Unless you have information that I don't have or unless you think people shouldn't go hiking in nature, we can't really say that it's all the hiker's fault. Actually, the article says he was an experienced hiker, he was in an off-trail area, but in a popular one close to a trail. So to me it seems he probably didn't do anything stupid, but he got unlucky not noticing the bear in time or maybe the bear was extremely aggressive.

Why shouldn't the hiker have been there? (Oh wait a minute, were you talking about mayo's article? Because in that case in Trentino it's clear that the hiker did something stupid. Anybody going out into an area with bears should know to be extremely careful with bears in general and especially when they have cubs.)

By the way, I don't know much about bears so I don't know whether the fact that the bear consumed human meat and had the intention of feeding on it again means that it's likely the the bear would hunt humans for food or not. But if this is enough evidence to confirm that the bear was likely to hunt humans for food I fully support killing it. But hey, I don't know much about bears, so I'm not qualified to say whether this is the case or not.

Earlier this summer I was in Slovakia in the Low Tatra's where there's a bunch of brown bears. I hear that the year before in the village where I stayed this summer there was a bear who wandered into the village. I think eating from garbage and stuff like that. The authorities captured the bear and moved it somewhere far away from the village into the national park again, but it didn't take long before it entered the village again. So eventually they were forced to kill this bear as well. I fully support killing the bear in this instance. It kept going into the village and it had learned to scavenge in populated area's for food. As long as most people have no problem killing animals for food, I reckon few people will have a problem with killing animals to protect human life, which to me seems a more lofty end than food.

(I know that you don't eat meat so I know that last remark doesn't necessarily apply to you )

 

[Echoes]

The thing is, I'm also with the bear on this.

Westerners are living in such easy, comfortable and luxurious areas that they don't realise that nature in itself is a very hostile environment. Through their science and technological progress (industrialisation and such) they domesticated nature. Hence it's so shocking to see a Westerner killed by a grizzly. Africans, Arabs, Asians & South Americans (to some extent) are confronted with hostile nature on a daily basis. Hence they accept its laws with humility. But sophisticated Westerners are so stuck to their privileges, their mothers fed them with baby bottles since early childhood, they cannot endure pain anymore.

The problem for me is that I cannot possibly identify with some pseudo-ecologists who are also siding with the bear because some who did here are the first to defend this progressive/atheistic Western civilization which we are living in when it suits them. When it matters, they always swear allegiance to whom it must, in particular in this clash of civilizations that the West is waging against the Islamic culture. Oh the hypos !!! All the Western McDonalds, Burger King's and slaughterhouses in the world must be protected against evil Islam. We saw that clearly last January. A tribe of ancient mind stuck in the past are they vilified into, which means a people who don't accept industrialization, nature-destruction and luxury. The Islamic civilization like all traditional civilizations on Earth is much more in touch with nature than ours and that is what the Greenpeace-like ecologists cannot possibly stand. The hypos! They revolt me, really. I can't stand hypocrisy.

It reminds me of the bears in the Pyrenees. They have been brought back from Slovakia, I think. Some were shot down by Pyrenean farmers, sadly so, but whose fault is it? These farmers have been used to live in a bear-free environment, they were lucky and along came modernist ecologists transporting bears BY PLANE from Eastern Europe and putting them back in the Pyrenees for whatever reason, all of them equipped with very "natural" Argos Seabeacon buoys. Let me laugh...

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

As unfortunate as the whole story is, in this case, I think they did the right thing.

"An important fact in the decision to euthanize the bear was that a significant portion of the (hiker's) body was consumed and cached with the intent to return for further feeding," the park said in a media statement. "Normal defensive attacks by female bears defending their young do not involve consumption of the victim's body."

"As managers of Yellowstone National Park, we balance the preservation of park resources with public safety," said Yellowstone National Park Superintendent Dan Wenk. "Our decision takes into account the facts of the case, the goals of the bear management program and the long-term viability of the grizzly bear population as a whole, rather than an individual bear."

I've done some checking since I read that and it is not uncommon for bears to kill to protect, and then eat to show the cubs "how its done". Is this ranger claiming that this bear, and now her cubs, have the taste for human so they will be more dangerous? "We killed them so the park will be safe." How big can I make the letters "BS"? Every mamma bear in that park will do the same thing.

Perhaps they did think that. It's a national park. I'm sure they get scrutinized for everything they do...it's not like they can just kill bears when they want to. There has to be a very good reason to do so. These people most likely aren't savage animal hater/killers....I'm sure they were just looking after the safety of the people who visit the park. Oh, and the cubs weren't killed.

Definitely. Let's let the experts deal with the situation, and let them, not laymen, evaluate which bears are dangerous and which aren't. The comeback of the grizzlies in Yellowstone has been impressive, and I think the Fed have asked for them to be removed from the threatened list. I definitely feel for the bear, but you can't really have bears who shown to have eaten humans left to roam free. What are the alternatives? Make the park off limits to humans, or make everyone staying there sign a waiver? Look, we have something special in the US that we have these wild, undeveloped lands, and we've done well to keep them and the animals which inhabit them. But if people can't use the park in relative safety, we'll lose the wild lands to other pressures.

It has to work this way, and those who live, study and have been educated and trained in the management of the park and the animals need to have the room to do their jobs.

 

[ToreBear]

Interesting case. If the bear had started to consume the guy, and stored remains, I think this is clear cut. It's bear behavior out of the ordinary. The smell of humans should not be associated with food.

In Svalbard we have a lot of polar bears, and their natural behavior is to look upon humans as food. Still if the bear kills/eats or even attacks someone they are killed, no matter whose fault it is.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

There are some unanswered questions here for me. But before I point them out, understand that I lived in Oregon for over 40 years, spent many, many days backpacking and hiking in the forest, some on remote trails, some solo. I've also been throughout the western US doing the same. And I've been to Yellowstone, more than once. I have seen bears on trails, and a few who appeared "lost", even one walking on a road. I never had any sort of confrontation, but did surprise one once, about 40' from me on a trail (it ran off scared, which is their normal behavior). I also have a cousin who was a USFS ranger for 35 years.

Here's what I don't understand:

• Did the NPS know there was grizzly bear activity in the area where the hiker was killed? While there can be bears anywhere, history has shown that rangers get a lot of feedback on the general whereabouts of bears, especially in National Parks. Furthermore, was this bear and her cubs on a popular trail? Or was the trail remote, and no one had visited in a while and the ranger information on it out of date? If the NPS knew the bears were in the vicinity and this was a heavy bear area, did the put up signs indicating it? Have they been telling hikers about the area?

• We still don't know what the hiker did. Was he blindly walking along, came around a corner, and found himself between the cubs and the mom, who promptly freaked out and quickly attacked him? If so, that's just sheer bad luck and I feel for the guy and his family.

• Did the man come prepared? Did he have bear (pepper) spray? It sounds like people didn't even know he was missing. This is shameful since he was a park employee of some sort. Pepper spray won't ward off all bears, and misusing it can be worse than not having any. But we don't know these answers. It's also likely we'll never know what he did when he encountered the bears. What action he took.

• Did the NPS consider closing the trail, and adjacent trails for the rest of the season (only about 2 months to go), before just catching and killing the bear and leaving the cubs motherless? Or was it part of such a popular network, or very close to civilization, that this was impossible? I have been to areas in the Cascades and Sierra Nevada mountains where there have been bear encounters, and the USFS closed trails, and issued warning signs at all nearby trailheads, indicating heavy bear activity. In every instance we all knew what that meant: There's always another hike elsewhere, or another day to go.

• Did the NPS consider capturing and transferring the mother and cubs to a remote area in the park, or adjacent USFS land outside the park? While not common, this has happened before. If dismissed, I'd be curious to know the reasons why?

 

[Archibald]

The thing is, I'm also with the bear on this.

Westerners are living in such easy, comfortable and luxurious areas that they don't realise that nature in itself is a very hostile environment. Through their science and technological progress (industrialisation and such) they domesticated nature. Hence it's so shocking to see a Westerner killed by a grizzly. Africans, Arabs, Asians & South Americans (to some extent) are confronted with hostile nature on a daily basis. Hence they accept its laws with humility. But sophisticated Westerners are so stuck to their privileges, their mothers fed them with baby bottles since early childhood, they cannot endure pain anymore.

The problem for me is that I cannot possibly identify with some pseudo-ecologists who are also siding with the bear because some who did here are the first to defend this progressive/atheistic Western civilization which we are living in when it suits them. When it matters, they always swear allegiance to whom it must, in particular in this clash of civilizations that the West is waging against the Islamic culture. Oh the hypos !!! All the Western McDonalds, Burger King's and slaughterhouses in the world must be protected against evil Islam. We saw that clearly last January. A tribe of ancient mind stuck in the past are they vilified into, which means a people who don't accept industrialization, nature-destruction and luxury. The Islamic civilization like all traditional civilizations on Earth is much more in touch with nature than ours and that is what the Greenpeace-like ecologists cannot possibly stand. The hypos! They revolt me, really. I can't stand hypocrisy.

It reminds me of the bears in the Pyrenees. They have been brought back from Slovakia, I think. Some were shot down by Pyrenean farmers, sadly so, but whose fault is it? These farmers have been used to live in a bear-free environment, they were lucky and along came modernist ecologists transporting bears BY PLANE from Eastern Europe and putting them back in the Pyrenees for whatever reason, all of them equipped with very "natural" Argos Seabeacon buoys. Let me laugh...

even closer to "home" [of the incident] is the situation with the gray wolves in the US. Yellowstone region, if you must. They're currently being made extinct for the second time...
The US and their ability to manage land and nature is pathetic. Seriously odd thought processes at times. And it's not just the US

Simple fact is that humans don't cope well with not being at the actual top of the food chain. And that is, if they actually understand what the natural food chain is...

There are animals in this world that are rightfully referred to as "predators", "dangerous", "killers" - it's a simple deal, if you encounter one you're likely to come off second best, so don't f*ck with them. Whether that's bears, sharks, lions, poisonous snakes, whatever... This is their world too, so be careful if you're in their back yard - or if you climb into their enclosure at a zoo.

Respect for nature - why is it that so hard to some people to work out? Why must we just destroy everything that may be 'dangerous' to us as individuals?
"but you can't really have bears who shown to have eaten humans left to roam free"... Why the f*ck not?? To them it's meat, and that's what carnivores eat - there's nothing personal about it. The bear hasn't got it in for you because it's eaten another human - same thought process by the bear towards any fish or deer or rabbit it catches... Survival. We have 'self defense' laws, but can't think along those same lines for another creature? One protecting her 'family'...

If you're slow or stupid in nature it's referred to as natural selection - something humans just can't deal with - unless it's a Darwin Award.

"Only until all of mankind lives in harmony with nature can we truly decree ourselves to be an intelligent species" - Genelle Haldene

 

[sniper]

good thread, good posts, good examples.

Living on the very edge of a big city, I see from up close how different kinds of wild life (owls, deers, foxes) rapidly lose their habitat in favor of new buildings and roads.
I see foxes lying along the roadside if not splattered all over the road surface.
It's just wrong.

Yes, totally on the bear's side.

 

[Tricycle Rider]

even closer to "home" [of the incident] is the situation with the gray wolves in the US.

This reminds me of the recent news that a pack of gray wolves (adult plus cubs) had been spotted in Northern California. Officially they had not been seen there since 1924!

Somebody rightfully commented that they may not last long, though, while they are on the endangered species list some overly enthusiastic hunters or poachers might kill them anyway.

http://www.krcrtv.com/news/local/shasta-pack-photos-show-new-wolves-in-northern-california/34826896


Anyhoo, don't mean to derail the thread, I'm on the bear's side.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

Respect for nature - why is it that so hard to some people to work out? Why must we just destroy everything that may be 'dangerous' to us as individuals?
"but you can't really have bears who shown to have eaten humans left to roam free"... Why the f*ck not?? To them it's meat, and that's what carnivores eat - there's nothing personal about it. The bear hasn't got it in for you because it's eaten another human - same thought process by the bear towards any fish or deer or rabbit it catches... Survival. We have 'self defense' laws, but can't think along those same lines for another creature? One protecting her 'family'...

The problem is that this bear did more than protect itself and its family. The ranger in the article actually said that a major reason for killing the bear was the fact did instead of just killing the hiker, it consumed his meat and took some to store for later. Bears are omnivores and they don't normally hunt humans. So yeah, in an area with a lot of hikers, I'd rather not have a bear that has started to see humans as prey lurking around. Humans are on top of the food chain and if bears don't understand that and start hunting humans, they'll learn that sooner or later. If bears are allowed to defend themselves, then humans should be too.

Also, no matter how much a culture is in tune with nature, animals that have learned to see humans as prey get killed everywhere. That's a major problem for tigers for instance. For tigers it's actually somewhat common to hunt humans, at least much more common than with wolves, bears, lions et cetera. So if a tiger has learned to hunt humans and it's living around a some remote village or something, it will learn sooner or later that it isn't on top of the food chain. You can't expect some remote rural village in India to accept that their fields have become a hunting ground for a tiger.

Whichever way you look at it, in the end humans are on top of the food chain and animals who don't understand that and attack humans will learn that sooner or later. That's just how nature works.

 

[sniper]

Whichever way you look at it, in the end humans are on top of the food chain and animals who don't understand that and attack humans will learn that sooner or later. That's just how nature works.

animals don't just 'learn'. that's why they're animals.
and even if we're on top of the food chain (which i guess is open to debate), that clearly doesn't mean it was justified to kill the bear.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

animals don't just 'learn'. that's why they're animals.
and even if we're on top of the food chain (which i guess is open to debate), that clearly doesn't mean it was justified to kill the bear.

No what justifies killing the bear is that the experts apparently feel that there is a significant risk that it will kill humans again. But I'm with Alpe on this one, there's some unanswered questions here. So I'm not making a very firm judgement here, I'm just going by what the experts say.

 

[BigMac]

Just for the record, we're not at the top of the food chain. We're similar to pigs with regards to that. Obligate carnivores and apex predators (which humans are not) are at the top of the food chain.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Respect for nature - why is it that so hard to some people to work out? Why must we just destroy everything that may be 'dangerous' to us as individuals?

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." - Francis Bacon

The problem is that this bear did more than protect itself and its family. The ranger in the article actually said that a major reason for killing the bear was the fact did instead of just killing the hiker, it consumed his meat and took some to store for later.

I addressed this in my previous post. The article makes it seem as though killing the bear was the only option, but there were others, none of which were discussed in the article.

 

[sniper]

great FB quote