Yellowstone Grizzly Associated with Two Deaths

A

Alaska444

Moderator
Yellowstone National Park officials earlier this summer declined to kill a mother grizzly after it killed a hiker in the early part of the summer. A second attack that killed a camper is now possibly associated with the same bear. For this reason, the female mother grizzly was killed.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/10/03/bear-grizzly-killed.html

The deaths of two people possibly by the same bear brings into question the policy of allowing bears to act "naturally" when they kill a person in the first instance. In retrospect, it is likely that the park officials may have contributed to the second incident by not removing this bear in a timely manner. I suspect we will see a lawsuit soon especially from the second victim's family and perhaps rightfully so.

These incidents bring home the need to have multiple defenses against bears if you are going to go hiking in their country. Bear spray may have been the best defense in the first attack, but it appears that second attack ambushed the man while he was in his tent. If you have warning of a bear near your camp, in that instance, an adequately powered firearm may be the best defense especially if at night while confined to your tent. Filling the tent with bear spray is not likely to be a viable defense option.

Grizzlies are dangerous and ANY grizzly that has killed a person should be killed immediately. The double tragedy in Yellowstone this summer may be even more tragic yet.
 
One report I saw indicated that there was evidence of more than one bear at the site of the first killing, so park personel were reluctant to id a specific bear. Completely understandable, if tragic in retrospect.

The same report said they used DNA evidence to ID the bear in the second attack as one from the earlier killing, so, with that evidence, the bear was destroyed.

Its a sad fact that a good firearm is not a protection from a bear attack. its only a defense after the bear attacks. Go sleep under canvas (or nylon these days) in bear country, and you are at risk. Period. Good practices minimize the risk (proper food storage, etc.), but nothing eliminates the risk, as long as you are in bear country.

Going into the wilderness (even when, or maybe especially when, its called a "park") with the attitude, concious or otherwise, that you are safe is the first big step to trouble. But many people do it, year after year. Most get away with it, but the odds catch up to some.

Park personell do the best they can, I believe, but they are neither all knowing, nor able to be everywhere.

They call it wilderness for a reason.
 
True enough 44 AMP, being a park ranger I am sure is a difficult and thankless job. The report I had heard is that the bear in question was easy to identify with a cub that had a specific white marking and they had kept it under observation.

My point is that the park should really evaluate how to deal with bears involved in any attack.

The take home message is that if there has been a bear attack with a bear still on the loose, extra precautions are in order. If you MUST camp in a tent, put up an electric bear fence which does offer some degree of protection. I personally am done with tents in bear country.
 
It would seem to me, at first thought, that I'd rather fill my tent with pepper spray and have me AND the bear pretty much blind than I would try to shoot the thing from the chaos of being attacked in a tent.

I'll recover from pepper spray, the bear will run away.
 
At the very least, any bear identifiable as having investigated the kill site of the hiker should have been immediately put down or removed to a zoo or other contained area. I believe that i read the cub or cubs were sent to some type contained/monitored facility, presumably more for their protection than for the protection of their potential, future, human victims.

I know i am in the minority on this, but i just don't think people should get inside the cage with the animals at the zoo. Similarly, i see no reason to comingle with potentially deadly animals on a nature walk or day hike. I think the bears should be eliminated from the areas of the park in which they could come in contact with people using fences, culling of the curious/agressive individuals, time/access limitations for the humans, etc. I mean seriously, if we want all the campers to live dangerously, why do we make them wear seatbelts on the drive to the park, why post lifeguards at the beach, why have an FDA, why all the worry over the EPA and pollution, etc. ?
 
I spend most of summers in bear country. I would not hesitate to kill a bear if it was to protect a human life. At the same time I think it was the bear's home long before people showed up and I do everything I can to avoid contact with them. All of the problem bears I know of in that aria got that way because of irresponsible people feeding them or leaving trash unsecured from them. I do not think the bear should be put down for that, just relocated if necessary.

I do not think bears should be eliminated from an aria for the benefit of people. If you are not willing to accept the risk stay home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top