Grizzly Attack (another one)

Billy

Big poppa
Staff member
Admin

Salmo_g

Legend
Forum Supporter
Right now greater Yellowstone grizzly bear population is above the level established by by the planning legally done by biologists and the public but they cannot be de-listed
under ESA.
This is an important point Rob. I think it's imperative that since we humans have radically modified the landscape, if we want to have apex predators - and a host of other animals, like our over-abundant harbor seals and sea lions - then we should accept the responsibility of managing those populations at levels that are consistent with the landscape (and seascape) as it exists today. If we just let "nature run its course" as some people seem to prefer, it does not end well for either the predators, their prey, or for people. The North Cascades are a harsh environment with relatively scarce resources. Grizzly bears introduced there will wander searching for food, and they're gonna' end up in someone's hay field or pasture during calving season.
 

kmudgn

Steelhead
I'm wondering if the dog was killed by the bear because he/she was defending the people. Just curious as it seems that the dog would seem like an afterthought for the bear unless it was provoked
 

Otter

Steelhead
I'm wondering if the dog was killed by the bear because he/she was defending the people. Just curious as it seems that the dog would seem like an afterthought for the bear unless it was provoked
In today's update statement, Parks Canada says they will never know exactly what happened, since there were no surviving witnesses:

I'll copy parts of today's update, from this newspaper:
https://www.nanaimobulletin.com/nat...ff-was-old-had-bad-teeth-parks-canada-4994401

“The incident happened in a remote wilderness location and there were no witnesses. We will never know the full details of what led to the attack and will not speculate.”

Parks Canada has said its dispatchers received an alert at about 8 p.m. Friday from an inReach GPS device about a bear attack west of Ya Ha Tinda Ranch, about 200 kilometres northwest of Calgary.

The agency immediately sent its Wildlife Human Attack Response Team to the area by ground, because weather conditions in the mountains prevented it from using a helicopter. The team arrived at about 1 a.m. Saturday and found the two people dead, the statement said.

Parks Canada said the team, which is specially trained in firearms and wildlife attack site investigation and forensics, encountered a grizzly bear that displayed aggressive behaviour and charged toward them.

“This is why there was no choice but to shoot and kill the bear on-site,” said Tuesday’s statement.

It said a necropsy was completed on the bear, and it was determined to be a non-lactating female estimated to be more than 25 years old and in fair body condition.

“Her teeth were in poor condition and (she) had less than normal body fat for this time of year.”

The statement added that DNA samples from the bear confirmed it was responsible for the attack, and it was not collared, tagged or previously known to wildlife staff in the park.


CBC News has some more details, here:
 

Greg Armstrong

Go Green - Fish Bamboo
Forum Supporter
They should just keep them in Yellowstone where they are friendly and folks can run up and pet them.
In today's update statement, Parks Canada says they will never know exactly what happened, since there were no surviving witnesses:

I'll copy parts of today's update, from this newspaper:
https://www.nanaimobulletin.com/nat...ff-was-old-had-bad-teeth-parks-canada-4994401

“The incident happened in a remote wilderness location and there were no witnesses. We will never know the full details of what led to the attack and will not speculate.”

Parks Canada has said its dispatchers received an alert at about 8 p.m. Friday from an inReach GPS device about a bear attack west of Ya Ha Tinda Ranch, about 200 kilometres northwest of Calgary.

The agency immediately sent its Wildlife Human Attack Response Team to the area by ground, because weather conditions in the mountains prevented it from using a helicopter. The team arrived at about 1 a.m. Saturday and found the two people dead, the statement said.

Parks Canada said the team, which is specially trained in firearms and wildlife attack site investigation and forensics, encountered a grizzly bear that displayed aggressive behaviour and charged toward them.

“This is why there was no choice but to shoot and kill the bear on-site,” said Tuesday’s statement.

It said a necropsy was completed on the bear, and it was determined to be a non-lactating female estimated to be more than 25 years old and in fair body condition.

“Her teeth were in poor condition and (she) had less than normal body fat for this time of year.”

The statement added that DNA samples from the bear confirmed it was responsible for the attack, and it was not collared, tagged or previously known to wildlife staff in the park.


CBC News has some more details, here:
Thanks for the link.
 

jasmillo

}=)))*>
Forum Supporter
I am all for the natural spread of large predators, I am very anti "planting" populations, same with other predators.
Once these population are planned for by wildlife professionals and those plans are agreed to by public comment and ratification those plans should be allowed to take affect without legal disruption.
Right now greater Yellowstone grizzly bear population is above the level established by by the planning legally done by biologists and the public but they cannot be de-listed
under ESA. because bad people who intentionally did not bargain in good faith are able to find sympathetic judges and stop the delisting.. yes. Bad people..

I know this particular incident was in Canada.
But these animal rights activists have blood on their hands concerning Yellowstone. I hope they feel some guilt. Each hunter ,angler or stupid turon is more valuable than all of the regions grizz.

I disagree. You cannot baby safe the world. At some point adults need to make decisions considering the risks involved. We do it in our everyday lives as we should when we decide to enjoy hunting and fishing. A lot of things can kill you. Being attacked and eaten by a grizzly bear, as awful as that would be, should be quite low on the list of one’s worries while enjoying the outdoors if the right precautions are taken. Even for those of us who recreate often in regions where they reside.

Not going to debate the one human more valuable than every grizzly comment. That’s a religious point of view and though I disagree, respect your right to have it.
 

Mossback

Fear My Powerful Emojis 😆
Forum Supporter
Wild places need wild things...
Trying to 'church them up' so some folks won't be askeard...
Lol
Ridding the wild places of wild things was a mistake...I'd rather rid them of the people who are askeard...by returning the wild things.
 

Brian Miller

Be vewy vewy quiet, I'm hunting Cutthwoat Twout
Forum Supporter
Not going to debate the one human more valuable than every grizzly comment. That’s a religious point of view and though I disagree, respect your right to have it.

Ridding the wild places of wild things was a mistake...I'd rather rid them of the people who are askeard...by returning the wild things.
The Canadian Parks response team investigating the attack shot that bear because they felt threatened by its aggressive behavior. I doubt they were "askeared", but felt that bear was going to attack other people. Bears that kill livestock or even feed out of garbage cans and destroy property are often killed. That has nothing to do with religion. It was decided long ago with a lot lower human population than there is today that people and apex predators don't mix well. Whenever that is inevitably demonstrated, the predators are going to suffer the consequences.
 

FinLuver

Native Oregonian…1846
I disagree. You cannot baby safe the world. At some point adults need to make decisions considering the risks involved. We do it in our everyday lives as we should when we decide to enjoy hunting and fishing. A lot of things can kill you. Being attacked and eaten by a grizzly bear, as awful as that would be, should be quite low on the list of one’s worries while enjoying the outdoors if the right precautions are taken. Even for those of us who recreate often in regions where they reside.

Not going to debate the one human more valuable than every grizzly comment. That’s a religious point of view and though I disagree, respect your right to have it.
Cool…
Bring back carrying sidearms and rifles, as well as the bounty per nose programs.
Adults made sensible decisions back then when recreating and earning a living in the great outdoors.
On the plus side, that bear will make a nice coat. 😉
 

jasmillo

}=)))*>
Forum Supporter
Cool…
Bring back carrying sidearms and rifles, as well as the bounty per nose programs.
Adults made sensible decisions back then when recreating and earning a living in the great outdoors.
On the plus side, that bear will make a nice coat. 😉

:)

Did you dip a little too deep into the hard stuff tonight or did I really just get that deep into your crawl with my comment?

So I assume you are cool with rampant gill netting, the state of salmon and steelhead in our region, etc.?

We ALL want salmon and steelhead to be what they once were and blame the seals and sea lions and tribes and the boogeyman for the fact that they are not.

Yet grizzlies occupy less than 10% of their historic range and folks start saying…that’s fine. It’s a new world. Humans have radically changed the landscape. This is the “new norm”…

Ha…put the whiskey down and come back at me with something else to make this a real debate ;).
 

FinLuver

Native Oregonian…1846
:)

Did you dip a little too deep into the hard stuff tonight or did I really just get that deep into your crawl with my comment?

So I assume you are cool with rampant gill netting, the state of salmon and steelhead in our region, etc.?

We ALL want salmon and steelhead to be what they once were and blame the seals and sea lions and tribes and the boogeyman for the fact that they are not.

Yet grizzlies occupy less than 10% of their historic range and folks start saying…that’s fine. It’s a new world. Humans have radically changed the landscape. This is the “new norm”…

Ha…put the whiskey down and come back at me with something else to make this a real debate ;).
Sober as a judge. But you sure are twisted…assumptions, comments, panties, or whatever. 🤦🏼‍♂️
 

DimeBrite

Saltwater fly fisherman

Men have feelings too.
May I share mine with you?
 

jasmillo

}=)))*>
Forum Supporter
Sober as a judge. But you sure are twisted…assumptions, comments, panties, or whatever. 🤦🏼‍♂️

If you feel that way about me, I am fully content with my comments, assumptions and panties. FYI for future back and forth. Mentioning my twisted, tangled fly lines will really agitate me
 

Rob Allen

Life of the Party
I disagree. You cannot baby safe the world. At some point adults need to make decisions considering the risks involved. We do it in our everyday lives as we should when we decide to enjoy hunting and fishing. A lot of things can kill you. Being attacked and eaten by a grizzly bear, as awful as that would be, should be quite low on the list of one’s worries while enjoying the outdoors if the right precautions are taken. Even for those of us who recreate often in regions where they reside.

Not going to debate the one human more valuable than every grizzly comment. That’s a religious point of view and though I disagree, respect your right to have it.

The correct precautions are not to plant grizzlies in the north cascades.. it's that simple. The correct precautions for areas where they already exist are to follow the plan established by wildlife professionals and tell anti-hunting organizations to go pound sand.

Elk hunters should be allowed to use any means necessary to protect themselves without even having to offer any explanation.

Elk hunting requires creeping quietly around grizzly bear habitat making prey sounds.
Having too many bears in one area makes that dangerous. There are too many grizzly because bad people sue to keep them from being de-listed.
 

jasmillo

}=)))*>
Forum Supporter
The correct precautions are not to plant grizzlies in the north cascades.. it's that simple. The correct precautions for areas where they already exist are to follow the plan established by wildlife professionals and tell anti-hunting organizations to go pound sand.

Elk hunters should be allowed to use any means necessary to protect themselves without even having to offer any explanation.

Elk hunting requires creeping quietly around grizzly bear habitat making prey sounds.
Having too many bears in one area makes that dangerous. There are too many grizzly because bad people sue to keep them from being de-listed.

I know. You have all the answers to every fishing, hunting and conservation quandary. Is it possible some of the science may have changed in 50 years? Maybe that is why the lawsuit was successful? I honestly don’t know the answer to that but a simple question to consider.

If only life was as simple as you try and make it out to be. All good Rob, no interest in debating this on the forum. It’s been done too many times before.

That said, when it comes to this issue, I am a flag waving, no apology giving, bad person. I hope you don’t hold that against me personally as I don’t hold your views against you.

We do agree on one thing; outdoorsman’s should be able to protect themselves in the field, outside of putting grizzlies right back in the same place that got them listed in the first place. IMO of course….
 

nwbobber

Steelhead
Forum Supporter
I've watched the elk herd in my backyard dwindle from 25-30 healthy animals to now, one old lone cow due to the foot rot that I first saw in 1998. What elk hunters need around here is some predators to clean up the diseased animals and let the herd rebuild naturally. I don't worry about bears when I'm in the woods, I treat them with respect, and I think I'm more likely to win the lottery than have a problem. I enjoy the outdoors for what the creator put there, and I am more often than not disappointed when I can see what the hand of man has left out there.
Rob you have more faith in humanity than I do if you think that allowing hunters to kill any predator with no questions asked would not go completely sideways.
 

Divad

Whitefish
:)

Did you dip a little too deep into the hard stuff tonight or did I really just get that deep into your crawl with my comment?

So I assume you are cool with rampant gill netting, the state of salmon and steelhead in our region, etc.?

We ALL want salmon and steelhead to be what they once were and blame the seals and sea lions and tribes and the boogeyman for the fact that they are not.

Yet grizzlies occupy less than 10% of their historic range and folks start saying…that’s fine. It’s a new world. Humans have radically changed the landscape. This is the “new norm”…

Ha…put the whiskey down and come back at me with something else to make this a real debate ;).
To be fair we have cherry picked the aquatic food chain, and left some of it with poor conservation efforts. In part due to blanket regulation that do not correctly address problems. I’ve made my opinion clear on the double dipping of tribe actions before, debate is still out on boogeyman 👻

As much of a bummer the interaction with the Montana fisherman is for the griz, packing saved their lives.
 
Top