Griz Kills Man, Rangers Kill Griz

[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.

"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.

What policy? All that very general statement says is that they can do whatever they want. If the park policy is to kill Griz who kill people hiking in OFF TRAIL areas, then yes the policy is wrong. Is there evidence that Jarvis wasn't part of the decision? If that is the case there is more wrong than it appears. My alternative suggestion is to let wild areas be wild (it wasn't like the Griz was in the parking lot at the lodge).

 

[red_flanders]

What policy? All that very general statement says is that they can do whatever they want.

Indeed, I should have used "decision". I don't know if there is any policy. From what little I know from reading about the situation, I agree with the decision. Since I don't know all the details, I'm happy to let the experts make the call since that is their business.

Is there evidence that Jarvis wasn't part of the decision?

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

So I asked if you had evidence for this statement. I will assume not. I would further be curious if anyone can provide evidence (since you are inferring there's a connection and others have stated it) that money is involved in the decision in some direct or meaningful way. I don't have any evidence either way, and I don't have any insight into whether this person should or shouldn't be involved.

It strikes me that ignoring the public concerns which might exist around bears eating people would be considered by many, myself included, as an abdication of responsibility. If you don't want decisions to be made with both visitors and wildlife in mind, perhaps you should share how such a park would be funded. I personally am very pleased with the parks and how they are being managed. They are set up in a very thoughtful way to balance the needs of people and nature, and are one of the shining successes and treasures of this country. The re-introduction of brown bears to the park has been a tremendous success. Without the park, they're extinct in the US. This seems better.

If that is the case there is more wrong than it appears. My alternative suggestion is to let wild areas be wild (it wasn't like the Griz was in the parking lot at the lodge).

It's a reasonable suggestion. Personally I don't think it's the best way to manage the situation given the needs of all the constituents, but it's potentially workable. Should people be allowed to kill bears in self-defense? Would you believe them if they claimed self-defense? How many dead bears in the park would be too many before we started realizing people were just shooting or poaching them? I'd certainly be of the mind to shoot first and worry later if a bear were attacking me, but I would be concerned that some people would abuse this.

 

[Archibald]

Re: 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.

so you can't see that there are reasons to be wary of said experts? That was your question.

You asked about why be wary of experts - I've given you conceivable examples of why to not just blindly follow their judgement/decision...
You just pointed out that they're following "park policy" - did they therefore actually make a decision or just "tow the company line"?
As to Park Policy, who wrote it and when? I'd take a punt that it was likely to have been written by a bureaucrat/govt admin or the like with more than just the interests of the wildlife at heart... they may well have consulted some 'wildlife experts', but that doesn't mean they took or used all of what they received.
Hell, you suggested there was a compromise that included the "welfare of the wildlife". Clearly, none was shown - bear was killed... By the way, where are the cubs it was protecting? Did they kill those too? Tis interesting that it's all gone quiet on their outcome and/or conclusion. Orphaned and left to fend for themselves now? Collected and sold to zoos or circuses? who knows... how's their welfare going?

Is it possible that;
- the rangers did what they had to as employees despite believing it was the wrong thing to do?
- the park policy could be out-dated and/or not entirely balanced in it's "compromise between human safety and the welfare of the wildlife"?
The actual answers could be yes or no, but either is possible as we're not aware of the definitive answer.

This has nothing to do with me being any more informed than the rangers - it's just that it's possible that there's more to it than the announcement and justification given for what was done.
Let's face it, we aren't privvy to everything that actually went on - only what was presented in various media quotes and reports.


As for this: "Without the public there is no park."
err... no, there'd just be the park - left alone from human interference... and some jobless rangers...

 

[red_flanders]

Re: 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.

so you can't see that there are reasons to be wary of said experts? That was your question.

You asked about why be wary of experts - I've given you conceivable examples of why to not just blindly follow their judgement/decision...
You just pointed out that they're following "park policy" - did they therefore actually make a decision or just "tow the company line"?
As to Park Policy, who wrote it and when? I'd take a punt that it was likely to have been written by a bureaucrat/govt admin or the like with more than just the interests of the wildlife at heart... they may well have consulted some 'wildlife experts', but that doesn't mean they took or used all of what they received.
Hell, you suggested there was a compromise that included the "welfare of the wildlife". Clearly, none was shown - bear was killed... By the way, where are the cubs it was protecting? Did they kill those too? Tis interesting that it's all gone quiet on their outcome and/or conclusion. Orphaned and left to fend for themselves now? Collected and sold to zoos or circuses? who knows... how's their welfare going?

Is it possible that;
- the rangers did what they had to as employees despite believing it was the wrong thing to do?
- the park policy could be out-dated and/or not entirely balanced in it's "compromise between human safety and the welfare of the wildlife"?
The actual answers could be yes or no, but either is possible as we're not aware of the definitive answer.

This has nothing to do with me being any more informed than the rangers - it's just that it's possible that there's more to it than the announcement and justification given for what was done.
Let's face it, we aren't privvy to everything that actually went on - only what was presented in various media quotes and reports.


As for this: "Without the public there is no park."
err... no, there'd just be the park - left alone from human interference... and some jobless rangers...

No, there would simply be no park. It would be developed land of some kind or another. Unless you're assuming all the humans are gone in this scenario, at which point the conversation is moot.

Me? I like the park and the humans and the wildlife.

Anything is possible. But as the last posts outline, there is no evidence of overt political involvement, and an utter lack (by all concerned) of specific information to serve as a basis for mistrust of those in charge. There is only wild speculation and in this case some kind of baseline distrust of anyone employed by the government.

Makes no sense to me.

 

[jmdirt]

Re: 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.

so you can't see that there are reasons to be wary of said experts? That was your question.

You asked about why be wary of experts - I've given you conceivable examples of why to not just blindly follow their judgement/decision...
You just pointed out that they're following "park policy" - did they therefore actually make a decision or just "tow the company line"?
As to Park Policy, who wrote it and when? I'd take a punt that it was likely to have been written by a bureaucrat/govt admin or the like with more than just the interests of the wildlife at heart... they may well have consulted some 'wildlife experts', but that doesn't mean they took or used all of what they received.
Hell, you suggested there was a compromise that included the "welfare of the wildlife". Clearly, none was shown - bear was killed... By the way, where are the cubs it was protecting? Did they kill those too? Tis interesting that it's all gone quiet on their outcome and/or conclusion. Orphaned and left to fend for themselves now? Collected and sold to zoos or circuses? who knows... how's their welfare going?

Is it possible that;
- the rangers did what they had to as employees despite believing it was the wrong thing to do?
- the park policy could be out-dated and/or not entirely balanced in it's "compromise between human safety and the welfare of the wildlife"?
The actual answers could be yes or no, but either is possible as we're not aware of the definitive answer.

This has nothing to do with me being any more informed than the rangers - it's just that it's possible that there's more to it than the announcement and justification given for what was done.
Let's face it, we aren't privvy to everything that actually went on - only what was presented in various media quotes and reports.


As for this: "Without the public there is no park."
err... no, there'd just be the park - left alone from human interference... and some jobless rangers...

Cubs to Ohio zoo.

 

[Archibald]

Re: Re:

No, there would simply be no park. It would be developed land of some kind or another. Unless you're assuming all the humans are gone in this scenario, at which point the conversation is moot.

Me? I like the park and the humans and the wildlife.

Anything is possible. But as the last posts outline, there is no evidence of overt political involvement, and an utter lack (by all concerned) of specific information to serve as a basis for mistrust of those in charge. There is only wild speculation and in this case some kind of baseline distrust of anyone employed by the government.

Makes no sense to me.

so it makes no sense to you that 'experts' could be towing a company line given to them by their bosses? Or that certain things are done more for PR than being the right thing to do?
Never heard of either happening before? Ever?


and, yes, it's also possible that without human interference that the "park" would remain as the wilderness it once was. Not all land has to be developed, although we are talking the US, so I'll give you that one

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

No, there would simply be no park. It would be developed land of some kind or another. Unless you're assuming all the humans are gone in this scenario, at which point the conversation is moot.

Me? I like the park and the humans and the wildlife.

Anything is possible. But as the last posts outline, there is no evidence of overt political involvement, and an utter lack (by all concerned) of specific information to serve as a basis for mistrust of those in charge. There is only wild speculation and in this case some kind of baseline distrust of anyone employed by the government.

Makes no sense to me.

so it makes no sense to you that 'experts' could be towing a company line given to them by their bosses? Or that certain things are done more for PR than being the right thing to do?
Never heard of either happening before? Ever?


and, yes, it's also possible that without human interference that the "park" would remain as the wilderness it once was. Not all land has to be developed, although we are talking the US, so I'll give you that one

There have been commercial pressures on that park since before it was protected with National Park status. I assure you there would be no park or wilderness there without the National Park designation. You can easily research that.

Of course I've heard of people doing things for the wrong reasons happening before. But again, until someone shares some evidence that this is what happened in this particular situation, that fact is meaningless.

If you have some evidence of whatever it is you're claiming, by all means, let's hear it and be convinced. Short of that, not sure what there is to discuss.

 

[Archibald]

Re: Re:

There have been commercial pressures on that park since before it was protected with National Park status. I assure you there would be no park or wilderness there without the National Park designation. You can easily research that.

Of course I've heard of people doing things for the wrong reasons happening before. But again, until someone shares some evidence that this is what happened in this particular situation, that fact is meaningless.

If you have some evidence of whatever it is you're claiming, by all means, let's hear it and be convinced. Short of that, not sure what there is to discuss.

Now, you want specific evidence? You want a "beyond all reasonable doubt", while I've given you plenty of reason to doubt...
and that answers the question of why I'd be wary of 'experts' - which was your original question.

being "wary" just means not being completely naive and blindly accepting what you're told as "the truth"... to consider that there may be a bigger picture and/or influences going on behind the scenes... or to just apply logic and common sense to what's touted...

Then again, perhaps you should live by your sword - convince me, with evidence, that there's nothing going on in the backrooms of Parks n Wildlife, or park management/staff having to tow a company line to whatever degree - be it protecting revenue, park survival or just job survival - to keep up a good public profile purely for the punters to make sure they are not scared to come back because of the natural actions of the bear...
maybe start with those "commercial pressures on the park" you mention...

 

[red_flanders]

You haven't given any specific evidence, just vague notions of meddling. I don't have any either, but since I'm not making an accusation, I don't need any. I hope that at last makes some sense for you.

 

[jmdirt]

Re:

You haven't given any specific evidence, just vague notions of meddling. I don't have any either, but since I'm not making an accusation, I don't need any. I hope that at last makes some sense for you.

You aren't making accusations, but you are making assumptions.
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. Even if Jarvis started out as a park loving ranger, he has no choice but to be a politician in his current position.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

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.

 

[jmdirt]

Re: Re:

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.

 

[red_flanders]

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.

 

[mikeNphilly]

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]

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...

 

[jmdirt]

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.

 

[Ruby United]

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

 

[MarkvW]

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...

 

[MarkvW]

Re:

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.

 

[QuizzicalSwin]

Interesting. .....

 

[jmdirt]

http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/grizzly-kills-mountain-biker-in-west-glacier-area/article_2383f67a-7335-597a-b5e7-c29f9681bff8.html

 

[This Charming Man]

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.

 

[BigMac]

If your tribe manages to have internet access, something tells me those practices are completely unnecessary.