Griz Kills Man, Rangers Kill Griz

[Maaaaaaaarten]

Re:

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.

Yeah okay, I looked into it quickly and I guess I had a flawed popular understanding of what the food-chain is. So yeah, humans being omnivores aren't on top of the food chain. Nevertheless, it's clear that tigers have more to fear from humans hunting them than the other way around, even though tiger's might higher on the food chain. I think that humans consume more tigers than the other way around (which is terrible by the way, because tigers are threatened species in a lot of area's and they're only being hunted because of superstitious beliefs in traditional Asian 'medicine', where they believe tiger blood has healing powers and stuff like that).

So anyway, sorry 'bout that, forget about my rambling - it's clear I don't know enough about biology - nevertheless, I still don't object to killing animals for the sake of human safety and if the experts feel that it was necessary to kill this bear for the sake of protecting humans, than I don't have a problem with it.

 

[sniper]

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.

cheers, fair enough.

there's just no animal justice.
I mean, who's going after King Carlos for instance for killing those elephants?

 

[Archibald]

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.

I'd be wary of "experts". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that there's a risk of humans being killed by bears. They view us like they'd view a deer or fish - only we're slower and easier to catch...
Why exactly should any animal in it's own natural habitat be killed because some humans wish to venture into that habitat?
"At your own risk" is something that seems to be overlooked by modern society. We laugh at some nitwit who climbs into the lion's enclosure at a zoo and wonders why he gets eaten. Same with climbing into a shark tank.
There's no difference with the bear at Yellowstone - it's just a larger 'enclosure' and the bear isn't fed by keeps, so must source it's own food

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

there's been an all out war on the wolves since obama's crew de-listed them.
Even prior to that, Palin n co have been killing them off as fast as they can go to clear the areas they want for oil

Considering the improvements to the ecologies and environments of the regions where they've been re-introduced, to remove them again is just madness

 

[Jspear]

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.

I'd be wary of "experts". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that there's a risk of humans being killed by bears. They view us like they'd view a deer or fish - only we're slower and easier to catch...
Why exactly should any animal in it's own natural habitat be killed because some humans wish to venture into that habitat?
"At your own risk" is something that seems to be overlooked by modern society. We laugh at some nitwit who climbs into the lion's enclosure at a zoo and wonders why he gets eaten. Same with climbing into a shark tank.
There's no difference with the bear at Yellowstone - it's just a larger 'enclosure' and the bear isn't fed by keeps, so must source it's own food

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

there's been an all out war on the wolves since obama's crew de-listed them.
Even prior to that, Palin n co have been killing them off as fast as they can go to clear the areas they want for oil

Considering the improvements to the ecologies and environments of the regions where they've been re-introduced, to remove them again is just madness

What is considered man's natural habitat?

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

I'd be wary of "experts". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that there's a risk of humans being killed by bears. They view us like they'd view a deer or fish - only we're slower and easier to catch...

Uhmmm I'm no expert on bear behaviour, but to be honest I'm sure that this is incorrect. I've always been told that bears are normally very shy and avoid human contact and rarely engage; only when a human startles them, and especially if they have cubs. I think it's very uncommon for bears to hunt humans as prey..........

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

That has been my experience, and the experience of most forest rangers I have talked to.

 

[Archibald]

I'd be wary of "experts". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that there's a risk of humans being killed by bears. They view us like they'd view a deer or fish - only we're slower and easier to catch...

Uhmmm I'm no expert on bear behaviour, but to be honest I'm sure that this is incorrect. I've always been told that bears are normally very shy and avoid human contact and rarely engage; only when a human startles them, and especially if they have cubs. I think it's very uncommon for bears to hunt humans as prey..........

courtesy of the Smithsonian...

A recent study in the Journal of Wildlife Management documented 59 fatal black bear attacks, resulting in 63 human deaths, in the United States and Canada from 1900 through 2009. And the scientists learned that many of our assumptions about bear dangers are wrong. The most important finding is that it is lone, hungry males—not mothers with young—who are most often the killers.

These [Black] bears silently stalk their prey, sometimes for hours, before quickly rushing to attack.

Brown bears are different - that is more likely the mother protecting her young.

Anyway, while there is a risk (as i mentioned), it's interesting that there's only been 63 fatalities in over 100years from black bears. A good presumption would be that there'd be a lower figure from the more docile and 'shy' Brown bears...
Apparently there's a greater risk of being killed by a cow - at approx 22 per year - so, you can really see why killing one grizzly is so pertinent in reducing the risk to humans...

What is considered man's natural habitat?

As a species, I don't think we're particularly "natural" any more, and we believe that we're above the natural world. We don't really fit in with nature, we destroy it and build our own habitat...

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

courtesy of the Smithsonian...

A recent study in the Journal of Wildlife Management documented 59 fatal black bear attacks, resulting in 63 human deaths, in the United States and Canada from 1900 through 2009. And the scientists learned that many of our assumptions about bear dangers are wrong. The most important finding is that it is lone, hungry males—not mothers with young—who are most often the killers.

These [Black] bears silently stalk their prey, sometimes for hours, before quickly rushing to attack.

Brown bears are different - that is more likely the mother protecting her young.

Anyway, while there is a risk (as i mentioned), it's interesting that there's only been 63 fatalities in over 100years from black bears. A good presumption would be that there'd be a lower figure from the more docile and 'shy' Brown bears...
Apparently there's a greater risk of being killed by a cow - at approx 22 per year - so, you can really see why killing one grizzly is so pertinent in reducing the risk to humans...

If over more than a hundred years there were only 59 lethal bear attacks from black bears, that means it's extremely rare even for black bears to attack humans for food right? Doesn't that confirm the point I was making that bears don't normally hunt humans for food? Even for black bears it apparently only happened a handful of times in over a 100 years.

Furthermore, the bear in this case was a brown bear.

So the point remains that we have a brown bear that has attacked and eaten a human, which is very uncommon, especially the eating and storing human meat as food. Considering this bear apparently roamed in an area popular for hiking, I can see why it is considered a risk.

Now maybe like Alpe suggested there were other measures that could have been taken to avoid the risk of further human deaths, that might be, I don't know much about managing bear populations. But I do know that bears and especially brown bears don't normally eat humans so we shouldn't pretend that this bear did something perfectly normal because he sees us like prey just like he would a deer or a fish.........

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

If over more than a hundred years there were only 59 lethal bear attacks from black bears, that means it's extremely rare even for black bears to attack humans for food right?...

Not necessarily. It also could mean that humans only extremely rarely offer themselves to black bears to be eaten.

 

[BigMac]

If over more than a hundred years there were only 59 lethal bear attacks from black bears, that means it's extremely rare even for black bears to attack humans for food right?...

Not necessarily. It also could mean that humans only extremely rarely offer themselves to black bears to be eaten.

Nailed.

Oh and yeah, there's no such thing as men's natural habitat. We're outside of the natural spectrum as Archibald suggested. Hence also why we can't justify certain of our actions as 'natural', but that' another topic.

 

[Archibald]

courtesy of the Smithsonian...

A recent study in the Journal of Wildlife Management documented 59 fatal black bear attacks, resulting in 63 human deaths, in the United States and Canada from 1900 through 2009. And the scientists learned that many of our assumptions about bear dangers are wrong. The most important finding is that it is lone, hungry males—not mothers with young—who are most often the killers.

These [Black] bears silently stalk their prey, sometimes for hours, before quickly rushing to attack.

Brown bears are different - that is more likely the mother protecting her young.

Anyway, while there is a risk (as i mentioned), it's interesting that there's only been 63 fatalities in over 100years from black bears. A good presumption would be that there'd be a lower figure from the more docile and 'shy' Brown bears...
Apparently there's a greater risk of being killed by a cow - at approx 22 per year - so, you can really see why killing one grizzly is so pertinent in reducing the risk to humans...

If over more than a hundred years there were only 59 lethal bear attacks from black bears, that means it's extremely rare even for black bears to attack humans for food right? Doesn't that confirm the point I was making that bears don't normally hunt humans for food? Even for black bears it apparently only happened a handful of times in over a 100 years.

Furthermore, the bear in this case was a brown bear.

So the point remains that we have a brown bear that has attacked and eaten a human, which is very uncommon, especially the eating and storing human meat as food. Considering this bear apparently roamed in an area popular for hiking, I can see why it is considered a risk.

Now maybe like Alpe suggested there were other measures that could have been taken to avoid the risk of further human deaths, that might be, I don't know much about managing bear populations. But I do know that bears and especially brown bears don't normally eat humans so we shouldn't pretend that this bear did something perfectly normal because he sees us like prey just like he would a deer or a fish.........

yeah, but naah...

1. "If over more than a hundred years there were only 59 lethal bear attacks from black bears, that means it's extremely rare even for black bears to attack humans for food right? "
the key here is the word "lethal" - 59 attacks that resulted in a human death. Don't confuse this with the total number of attacks on humans where they survived.
The point I was making was about bears hunting, which the evidence presented said, 'yes, black bears hunt humans' - the Smithsonian even described how they do it...

2. "Furthermore, the bear in this case was a brown bear."I mentioned brown bears, as did the Smithsonian, and the reasoning as to why they'd attack a human...

3. "Considering this bear apparently roamed in an area popular for hiking, I can see why it is considered a risk." You're logic is backwards here - the area is the bear's natural habitat. It's where the bear actually lives. Meanwhile, hikers like to go into this area. They need to do so 'at their own risk'... That is why it is risky for hikers.
It's not like the bear waltzed into the hiker's backyard...
Let's put it forwards: The hiker roamed into the bear's area. And that is why it should be considered a risk.
I think this could be a key difference in our points of view.

As to the severity of that risk, look again at the Smithsonian's stats, which as I mentioned would be even lower for fatalities from brown bear incidents. Brown bears defending their young are the main 'offenders'. Very rare, so logic dictates that a repeat occurrence should be quite rare too - don't disturb them and you won't get attacked.
It doesn't take Einstein to work out that during the seasonal time for baby bears to be born and shortly there after as they grow, all hikers should be extra aware of the dangers when venturing into that region... It's a simple deal really - during that time, the "momma" bears will defend their young, and should the opportunity be there for them to feed those cubs too, then they'll take it. (I notice there's no mention of whether only the "momma" bear partook of the "eating".)
Apparently, though, this means we should kill the offending bear for being itself?? Rather than maybe suggest either areas that are safer for hikers, or close the park for a brief time during the year...

 

[red_flanders]

I'd be wary of "experts".

Why? Seems to require some explanation. The experts are the people who know the most on the topic and who live and work in the area we're discussing. Surely to be "wary" of their judgements, we'd need a compelling reason?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that there's a risk of humans being killed by bears. They view us like they'd view a deer or fish - only we're slower and easier to catch...

Except that deer and fish are staple foods for them and humans aren't. Fairly major and substantive difference.

Why exactly should any animal in it's own natural habitat be killed because some humans wish to venture into that habitat?
"At your own risk" is something that seems to be overlooked by modern society. We laugh at some nitwit who climbs into the lion's enclosure at a zoo and wonders why he gets eaten. Same with climbing into a shark tank.
There's no difference with the bear at Yellowstone - it's just a larger 'enclosure' and the bear isn't fed by keeps, so must source it's own food.

These are good questions.

"At your own risk" applies here. There is no way the park management can or should attempt to guarantee safety of those using the park, no matter what management strategies they take, short of eliminating the wildlife or removing visitors. So there is inherent risk even in the case where park managers decide to eliminate a bear who has demonstrated unusual behavior which significantly increases risk to park visitors. There is a substantive risk whether they kill the bear or not, as it's certain that given enough time, other bears will in time exhibit this behavior.

I also think it's fair to say there is a massive difference between some nitwit entering a tiger cage at a zoo and a family or individual taking a walk in a National Park. There is a fairly massive difference in the expectation of safety, even though both contain some risk. One would be an extremely low-risk, moderate reward activity almost anyone would participate in, and one is the act of a lunatic or drug-addled maniac. So that comparison is wholly convincing.

The problem is that if you have a bear which is showing signs that it is unusually willing to attack humans for food, you kind of need to address it in a park which has millions of visitors a year. They need to maintain some kind of balance between human use, reasonable safety, and the welfare of the animal population as a whole. Allowing man-killing bears to remain in the park is bad policy, bad PR, and bad park management. Could they have moved the bear elsewhere? I don't know. I'll bet they're not over-funded or flush with extra equipment and manpower. I don't know if it directly relates to this situation, but from speaking with a good friend who works for Lassen and Rainier NP, they're not exactly getting what they think they need in terms of funding.

 

[Archibald]

I'd be wary of "experts".

Why? Seems to require some explanation. The experts are the people who know the most on the topic and who live and work in the area we're discussing. Surely to be "wary" of their judgements, we'd need a compelling reason?

"experts" aren't always correct. This has been proven time and time again over centuries. You can't take what is said as being 100% correct, or in blind faith... Depends on individual expouting those judgements and the reasoning behind them - isn't that what the this discussion is about; some 'expert's' opinion and reason as to why the bear was killed?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that there's a risk of humans being killed by bears. They view us like they'd view a deer or fish - only we're slower and easier to catch...

Except that deer and fish are staple foods for them and humans aren't. Fairly major and substantive difference.

To a degree, sure. However, humans are still considered edible to any bear - they just don't encounter humans as often as the deer or fish.
Yogi likes a picnic basket, but he doesn't encounter many (yeah, okay, so the average bear isn't exactly thinking of eating humans in the same way Yogi thinks of the contents of picnic baskets)

Why exactly should any animal in it's own natural habitat be killed because some humans wish to venture into that habitat?
"At your own risk" is something that seems to be overlooked by modern society. We laugh at some nitwit who climbs into the lion's enclosure at a zoo and wonders why he gets eaten. Same with climbing into a shark tank.
There's no difference with the bear at Yellowstone - it's just a larger 'enclosure' and the bear isn't fed by keeps, so must source it's own food.

These are good questions.

"At your own risk" applies here. There is no way the park management can or should attempt to guarantee safety of those using the park, no matter what management strategies they take, short of eliminating the wildlife or removing visitors. So there is inherent risk even in the case where park managers decide to eliminate a bear who has demonstrated unusual behavior which significantly increases risk to park visitors. There is a substantive risk whether they kill the bear or not, as it's certain that given enough time, other bears will in time exhibit this behavior.

I also think it's fair to say there is a massive difference between some nitwit entering a tiger cage at a zoo and a family or individual taking a walk in a National Park. There is a fairly massive difference in the expectation of safety, even though both contain some risk. One would be an extremely low-risk, moderate reward activity almost anyone would participate in, and one is the act of a lunatic or drug-addled maniac. So that comparison is wholly convincing.

The problem is that if you have a bear which is showing signs that it is unusually willing to attack humans for food, you kind of need to address it in a park which has millions of visitors a year. They need to maintain some kind of balance between human use, reasonable safety, and the welfare of the animal population as a whole. Allowing man-killing bears to remain in the park is bad policy, bad PR, and bad park management. Could they have moved the bear elsewhere? I don't know. I'll bet they're not over-funded or flush with extra equipment and manpower. I don't know if it directly relates to this situation, but from speaking with a good friend who works for Lassen and Rainier NP, they're not exactly getting what they think they need in terms of funding.

'guarantee of safety' - completely agree that the NP can't provide this, unfortunately, we're now in a world where those visiting the NP expect this. The risk is always there...

NP versus zoo enclosure - this is the difference in risk and exposure. Small enclosure, then the chance of encountering the inhabiting creature(s) is VERY high. Larger enclosure, then the lower the chance of encountering the inhabiting creature(s). The risk is still there, but the exposure reduces as the enclosure size goes up.

Now, did the bear exhibit unusual behaviour when you consider the situation of brown bears protecting their young? And following that, did the bear in question make the attack "willingly" and "for food", as you mention?
Mother bears with a couple of cubs are pretty hard pushed to hunt for food in general while caring/protecting their young, so when opportunity knocks... I'd be pretty sure they'd take it. As intimated previously; was it just the adult bear doing the feeding or did the young partake as well?

Now, going back to the NP - I completely get their position - they have a Park to run and money to make from the visitors coming to it, so they can't just shut the park because it's the birthing season for bears. They're hard pushed for funds, so would be reluctant to reduce those funds any further. Hence why the exercise becomes nothing more than PR damage control... "Hey folks, don't worry about that bear attack we just had coz we killed this rogue animal, so roll up, roll up!"...
So, were the "expert" rangers selling a story or were they completely correct on the situation and justification of killing this bear?

 

[jmdirt]

" Hence why the exercise becomes nothing more than PR damage control... "Hey folks, don't worry about that bear attack we just had coz we killed this rogue animal, so roll up, roll up!"..."

That's the point I brought up a few days ago. The experts made their decision based on politics not science.

 

[Son of Amsterhammer]

Since I know zero about managing large animals that can come into contact with humans regularly, I'm going to have to give the rangers a pass here. Sometimes you have to assume that people know what they're doing and they're making the right call. Anything I've ever seen about Wildlife Rangers has made me think protecting the wildlife is very important to them. I'm sure it wasn't a decision they took lightly.

 

[patricknd]

I hear bear is pretty tasty too, so there's that

 

[jmdirt]

The bears are fed up with humans around here:
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2015/09/01/3964684_archery-hunter-recovering-after.html?rh=1

 

[red_flanders]

"experts" aren't always correct. This has been proven time and time again over centuries. You can't take what is said as being 100% correct, or in blind faith... Depends on individual expouting those judgements and the reasoning behind them - isn't that what the this discussion is about; some 'expert's' opinion and reason as to why the bear was killed?

It's interesting how often this seems to come up in discussion these days. It seems a very common misunderstanding of the intent when someone recommends "listening to experts". Of course they aren't 100% correct all the time, and surely no thinking person would suggest they are, so I'm not sure why that's a useful point. The point is that we have to make decisions or take views all the time without 100% confidence in our information. Every day we do this, and we do it happily.

What I mean when I say "trust the experts" is that we should trust that they are the best informed, that they have the experience, training and judgement to make the best (not the incontrovertibly correct) decision in this (or any other) situation. This requires accepting that there are those who are more informed on a topic than we are, trusting others to do their jobs well, and accepting a reasonable level of risk that these folks are human and can be wrong. We simply live with that.

If there is a specific reason to question the experts, by all means let's hear it, and let us have that discussion. However if all we have is the fact that "experts aren't always correct", then there isn't anything to discuss. Conceded. So what? They still know more than anyone here about the situation. In lieu of any particular information, simply dismissing the judgements of experts out of hand seems foolish to me.

Now, going back to the NP - I completely get their position - they have a Park to run and money to make from the visitors coming to it, so they can't just shut the park because it's the birthing season for bears. They're hard pushed for funds, so would be reluctant to reduce those funds any further. Hence why the exercise becomes nothing more than PR damage control... "Hey folks, don't worry about that bear attack we just had coz we killed this rogue animal, so roll up, roll up!"...
So, were the "expert" rangers selling a story or were they completely correct on the situation and justification of killing this bear?

Are they in it to "make money"? I know several park employees, and that is literally the last thing they're in it for, as they can all (and many have) make a LOT more money doing other things. They do that job because they love the National Parks. But yes, they have a park to manage, because WE all want the park. And we the public want reasonable assurances of safety, and thoughtful, strategic management of the parks.

If you think the Rangers are "selling" anything and motivated by getting more and more people in the parks, you've not spent much down time with any Rangers. Sort of the opposite of what they're after, frankly. Is the upper management motivated to keep the park open? Of course. Why? Demand.

I think your view on the motivations of park employees is rather off-base.

 

[jmdirt]

"experts" aren't always correct. This has been proven time and time again over centuries. You can't take what is said as being 100% correct, or in blind faith... Depends on individual expouting those judgements and the reasoning behind them - isn't that what the this discussion is about; some 'expert's' opinion and reason as to why the bear was killed?

It's interesting how often this seems to come up in discussion these days. It seems a very common misunderstanding of the intent when someone recommends "listening to experts". Of course they aren't 100% correct all the time, and surely no thinking person would suggest they are, so I'm not sure why that's a useful point. The point is that we have to make decisions or take views all the time without 100% confidence in our information. Every day we do this, and we do it happily.

What I mean when I say "trust the experts" is that we should trust that they are the best informed, that they have the experience, training and judgement to make the best (not the incontrovertibly correct) decision in this (or any other) situation. This requires accepting that there are those who are more informed on a topic than we are, trusting others to do their jobs well, and accepting a reasonable level of risk that these folks are human and can be wrong. We simply live with that.

If there is a specific reason to question the experts, by all means let's hear it, and let us have that discussion. However if all we have is the fact that "experts aren't always correct", then there isn't anything to discuss. Conceded. So what? They still know more than anyone here about the situation. In lieu of any particular information, simply dismissing the judgements of experts out of hand seems foolish to me.

Now, going back to the NP - I completely get their position - they have a Park to run and money to make from the visitors coming to it, so they can't just shut the park because it's the birthing season for bears. They're hard pushed for funds, so would be reluctant to reduce those funds any further. Hence why the exercise becomes nothing more than PR damage control... "Hey folks, don't worry about that bear attack we just had coz we killed this rogue animal, so roll up, roll up!"...
So, were the "expert" rangers selling a story or were they completely correct on the situation and justification of killing this bear?

Are they in it to "make money"? I know several park employees, and that is literally the last thing they're in it for, as they can all (and many have) make a LOT more money doing other things. They do that job because they love the National Parks. But yes, they have a park to manage, because WE all want the park. And we the public want reasonable assurances of safety, and thoughtful, strategic management of the parks.

If you think the Rangers are "selling" anything and motivated by getting more and more people in the parks, you've not spent much down time with any Rangers. Sort of the opposite of what they're after, frankly. Is the upper management motivated to keep the park open? Of course. Why? Demand.

I think your view on the motivations of park employees is rather off-base.

Your first point is correct. However, the park director has political pressure, that will influence his decision (and I strongly believe it did in this case). Which slides directly into your second point. Park directors (we're not talking about every ranger, tour guide, etc. who loves the parks) have to answer to the feds (I guess technically they are feds) and there is a political (national) agenda for keeping the parks viable.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

"experts" aren't always correct. This has been proven time and time again over centuries. You can't take what is said as being 100% correct, or in blind faith... Depends on individual expouting those judgements and the reasoning behind them - isn't that what the this discussion is about; some 'expert's' opinion and reason as to why the bear was killed?

It's interesting how often this seems to come up in discussion these days. It seems a very common misunderstanding of the intent when someone recommends "listening to experts". Of course they aren't 100% correct all the time, and surely no thinking person would suggest they are, so I'm not sure why that's a useful point. The point is that we have to make decisions or take views all the time without 100% confidence in our information. Every day we do this, and we do it happily.

What I mean when I say "trust the experts" is that we should trust that they are the best informed, that they have the experience, training and judgement to make the best (not the incontrovertibly correct) decision in this (or any other) situation. This requires accepting that there are those who are more informed on a topic than we are, trusting others to do their jobs well, and accepting a reasonable level of risk that these folks are human and can be wrong. We simply live with that.

If there is a specific reason to question the experts, by all means let's hear it, and let us have that discussion. However if all we have is the fact that "experts aren't always correct", then there isn't anything to discuss. Conceded. So what? They still know more than anyone here about the situation. In lieu of any particular information, simply dismissing the judgements of experts out of hand seems foolish to me.

Now, going back to the NP - I completely get their position - they have a Park to run and money to make from the visitors coming to it, so they can't just shut the park because it's the birthing season for bears. They're hard pushed for funds, so would be reluctant to reduce those funds any further. Hence why the exercise becomes nothing more than PR damage control... "Hey folks, don't worry about that bear attack we just had coz we killed this rogue animal, so roll up, roll up!"...
So, were the "expert" rangers selling a story or were they completely correct on the situation and justification of killing this bear?

Are they in it to "make money"? I know several park employees, and that is literally the last thing they're in it for, as they can all (and many have) make a LOT more money doing other things. They do that job because they love the National Parks. But yes, they have a park to manage, because WE all want the park. And we the public want reasonable assurances of safety, and thoughtful, strategic management of the parks.

If you think the Rangers are "selling" anything and motivated by getting more and more people in the parks, you've not spent much down time with any Rangers. Sort of the opposite of what they're after, frankly. Is the upper management motivated to keep the park open? Of course. Why? Demand.

I think your view on the motivations of park employees is rather off-base.

Your first point is correct. However, the park director has political pressure, that will influence his decision (and I strongly believe it did in this case). Which slides directly into your second point. Park directors (we're not talking about every ranger, tour guide, etc. who loves the parks) have to answer to the feds (I guess technically they are feds) and there is a political (national) agenda for keeping the parks viable.

Oh man I think you are wrong. The rangers I know and the ones I have interacted with are the exact opposite of the politically driven.

 

[red_flanders]

Your first point is correct. However, the park director has political pressure, that will influence his decision (and I strongly believe it did in this case). Which slides directly into your second point. Park directors (we're not talking about every ranger, tour guide, etc. who loves the parks) have to answer to the feds (I guess technically they are feds) and there is a political (national) agenda for keeping the parks viable.

Thanks. What specifically is the nature of the political pressure, and from whom is it coming? Why do you believe the pressure existed and was a factor?

Sorry if this pressure is outlined upthread and I missed it, I was simply reacting to what read as vague distrust of experts.

 

[Archibald]

Oh, come on...
The rangers may well not be in agreement with what they must do, but they do their bosses bidding - as jmdirt points out. Boss-man or even those above him, wants/needs money for the park to operate, and the more punters through the gate, the easier that is. Not only to pay the rangers, but to run the park and keep it open...
That, Mister Flanders, is what my entire post alluded to - that the rangers, while considered "experts in the field" may be towing the line they have to - despite believing in the opposite.
Being 'wary' is not total distrust either, but keeping an open mind on what you're told by 'experts'.

Don't know if you're a parent, but the day you become one, you're inundated with experts in all manner of what to do... it's an utterminefield.

"Listen to all, then sort through the sh*t to find the truth"

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

Oh, come on...
The rangers may well not be in agreement with what they must do, but they do their bosses bidding - as jmdirt points out. Boss-man or even those above him, wants/needs money for the park to operate, and the more punters through the gate, the easier that is. Not only to pay the rangers, but to run the park and keep it open...
That, Mister Flanders, is what my entire post alluded to - that the rangers, while considered "experts in the field" may be towing the line they have to - despite believing in the opposite.
Being 'wary' is not total distrust either, but keeping an open mind on what you're told by 'experts'.

Don't know if you're a parent, but the day you become one, you're inundated with experts in all manner of what to do... it's an utterminefield.

"Listen to all, then sort through the sh*t to find the truth"

So you're speculating that there is some political pressure on park managers to keep the park open. Any evidence for this? I'm sure it's possible, but do you have any reason to believe this came into play? Is the killing of this bear some deviation from regular park policy, or is it your position that park policy is formed due to politics alone? Do you really think having a bear who has shown to eat a human and store the carcass for food a good thing to have roaming around one of the most populated parks in the world?

Politics is the business of human interactions and compromise. A compromise needs to be found between public safety and the welfare of the wildlife. I'm sure park policy reflects this reality. It also reflects the reality that the public demand for the park to stay open influences park policy. I don't see the problem in any of this. Without the park there wouldn't be a single brown bear in the general area of Yellowstone. Without the public there is no park.

Not sure what's confusing about that.

If you're equating every nitwit who writes a parenting book with the people who use a process based in science, review and evaluation which results in park policy, there's not much to talk about as you're making ridiculous, specious comparisons.

Show my how your view is more informed or relevant that the experts (who actually are experts) in this case, and how their decision was wrong and it might be an interesting conversation. Short of that, your arguments fail for me. Completely.

 

[jmdirt]

Your first point is correct. However, the park director has political pressure, that will influence his decision (and I strongly believe it did in this case). Which slides directly into your second point. Park directors (we're not talking about every ranger, tour guide, etc. who loves the parks) have to answer to the feds (I guess technically they are feds) and there is a political (national) agenda for keeping the parks viable.

Thanks. What specifically is the nature of the political pressure, and from whom is it coming? Why do you believe the pressure existed and was a factor?

Sorry if this pressure is outlined upthread and I missed it, I was simply reacting to what read as vague distrust of experts.

The pressure is coming from Jarvis, and trickling down to each park director. The parks make about $25 billion a year.

 

[red_flanders]

Your first point is correct. However, the park director has political pressure, that will influence his decision (and I strongly believe it did in this case). Which slides directly into your second point. Park directors (we're not talking about every ranger, tour guide, etc. who loves the parks) have to answer to the feds (I guess technically they are feds) and there is a political (national) agenda for keeping the parks viable.

Thanks. What specifically is the nature of the political pressure, and from whom is it coming? Why do you believe the pressure existed and was a factor?

Sorry if this pressure is outlined upthread and I missed it, I was simply reacting to what read as vague distrust of experts.

The pressure is coming from Jarvis, and trickling down to each park director. The parks make about $25 billion a year.

"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."

First let me say I see nothing wrong with this approach. The policy seems reasonable and well-considered.

Is the argument here that the park managers acted against policy due to intervention from Jonathan Jarvis?

Is the argument that park policy is wrong, and that policy was set with some undue or unwarranted influence of money or Jonathan Jarvis?

Is there any evidence Jarvis influenced policy or the decision to kill this bear in some inappropriate way?

Either way, is there a better policy that folks are espousing?

Honest questions. I've looked and can't find any answers to my questions. Lots of complaining about the decision and blame-assigning and accusations of "politics" (without presenting any evidence), but no alternate suggestions on what's to be done in a case like this.