Printable View
sad story
it says that after the man was reported missing they went back to the area where they had left the bear to wakeup, I am quite sure they already knew that this has happened before and they are on edge after drugging so it should be mandatory for them to monitor the animal until they know its fine
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06...lowstone-park/
It seems they become more aggressive after they are trapped and tranquilized for research. Ah, humans...
It is sad for all !! My prayers are with his family !
such a sad news , My prayers with his family
I truly feel very sad for the victim. However, I have to point out that I get rather angry and out of control when I am tranquilized, tied down and collared. Animals, after all, also have feelings and they like their freedom as much as we do. It only makes sense that an animal would become more aggressive toward humans after this treatment.
In this instance it seems like the victim is an innocent person who stumbled upon the angry bear. An unfortunate circumstance.
Gee, what an interesting bit of science that an animal that gets darted, drugged, and collared might be a little defensive next time it encounters someone out in the woods. Hope they got lots of info to study from this bear.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/19...ter-shot-dead/
that is ridiculous, they keep claiming they dont want to interfere with mother nature but this is a clear example that they are
The bear was later found and killed. Sad story all around.
i should point out that bears and other animals are not normally tranquilized, collared, and studied near trails for just this reason. When i was actively working with large carnivores we would purposely have a minimum distance to trails of about 2 miles. This was to keep hikers from stumbling onto a groggy bear, wolf, cougar, etc that would be recovering from its ordeal.
With that said however, if i were a hiker and saw a bear on or near the trail that looked like it was either asleep, sick, or dead, i would high tail it out of the area and report it to the rangers.
This is a series of unfortunate happenings that wound up with 2 deaths, both of which are tragic.
-S
The fact is that bears and other wildlife are being backed into a corner as their habitat diminishes. When we leave the comfort of our homes to observe wildlife, we have to understand that we are encroaching on their homes. If we don't do that in an intelligent and sensitive way, the results may be tragic all around, as was the case here.
What I don't completely understand is why when an animal attacks a human it seems mandatory that people kill it. As Norm says we are encroaching on his territory.
Bill
From what I understand, this attack occurred outside of YNP, by a bear that had just, within a couple of hours, been tranquilized and had a radio collar placed on it.. The bear was probably still pi***d off and when the old man stumbled upon it, the bear took his anger out on him. This is just a good example of why, when you go hiking, camping, photographing or whatever, in an area that you know has large predators, that you carrying some kind of weapon large enough to handle the problem.
And Bill, once a large predator has attacked or killed a human, and find out how easy it is, they will continue to attack humans when they can. This is why they have to be destroyed. It is sad, but that is the way it has to be..
Dave
I suggest that anyone carrying a firearm "large enough to handle the problem" stay away from wildlife areas others enjoy without the use of lethal force. There are nonlethal sprays that have proven to be effective in repelling bears and which will not leave an innocent bear dead because of a real or imagined threat. And anyone carrying a loaded, operable firearm into YNP can expect to be arrested.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave S
Norm:Quote:
Originally Posted by Norm Dulak
Did I say anything about carrying a firearm in YNP..??? This occurred OUTSIDE of YNP, where firearms are entirely legal.. You want to carry Bear Spray, you go right ahead as that is your option. Once, there was two Rangers talking and one said, "how do you know we got the right bear, and the other one said, "because he had Bear Spray on his breath"
And, I believe it is now legal to carry firearms in all of the NP's..
Dave
Interestingly enough Mike Robinson and I were photographing saw whet owls (see post in Avian) about a mile from Kitty Creek the night they brought out the body. We hadn't heard a thing about the incidient. The bear is probably one we've seen plenty of sign of but have never seen (huge tracks and scat on road).. We know people who've seen him. We called him Bobo... Terrible tragedy all around. I'll be pretty nervous tonight at the saw-whet nest not knowing for sure if the bear is still about.
I agree with Norm that we are encroaching on their territory and we need to be aware of our surroundings. Carrying pepper spray may be a good idea. The animals are running out of space in which to live, and it always distresses me to hear that the animal always gets shot.
read the other links Dale they shot him so you wont have to worry about him again :(Quote:
Originally Posted by D. Robert Franz
From my reading of the reports, it seems that this isn't a case of a hiker accidentally stumbling across a belligerent bear with a hangover, but that the hiker knew the bear had been tranquilized and collared and went looking for him. Clearly, he didn't expect that a wild animal in these circumstances would be aggressive which was poor judgement and - as written above - cost two valued lives.
In my view, neither a gun nor pepper spray are adequate replacements for good judgement.
Gerald
PS. Dave S - it is fine with me that you make clear your views and affiliations but I could respect them more if you actually gave your full name like everyone else does on these boards.
GERALD:
It is DAVE SMITH, common spelling...
And, so far, you seem like the only one that has a problem with it...
Dave
Hi Dave
... regarding the name is my fault and he is correct, please take no offense. I'm the one in charge of making changes and have insisted in using full names not the first and last initial. If I had taken care this would not have come up.
This incident is still under investigation and it is premature to draw conclusions as to the culpability of those involved in this tragic event. This article will offer additional insight http://tinyurl.com/22ly47f
well according to this article it is legal to carry a firearm in national parks if you have a carry permit. The other aspect of this is multiple state jurisdictions that recognize that permit and poaching laws (which you would not be protected from if you killed an animal in self defense).
http://www.bestutahlawyer.com/blog/2...fire-them.html
The article also mentions that a better way is just to travel in a larger group, make lots of noise, and carry some pepper spray. This is just a good general rule of thumb.
But this thread is a good reminder to practice common sense and safe hiking practices when traveling in wilderness with large predators to avoid tragedies such as this one.
-S
Dave,
Thanks for the clarification!
Gerald
This is a link to the National Park Service position on the new gun law: http://www.nps.gov/yell/parknews/10008.htm. While it is true that you can now possess a firearm in YNP, you'd better not use it. Hunting and the discharge of firearms in the park remain prohibited by federal law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Susan Griffith
The National Park Service also supports the use of bear pepper spray as a good last line of defense if used according to directions when animals are within 30 feet.
I would like a clarification. Was this statement a joke, a rumor, or a fact?Quote:
Originally Posted by David Smith
That's an old joke. It's a takeoff of "How do you tell black bear scat from grizzly? Grizzly scat has little bells in it and smells like pepper."
Article from today's St Louis Post Dispatch indicates the victim knew where the trap site was and went to see it.
DNA tests from the grizzly that was killed confirmed it was the one that killed the man.
link to updated story
http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/p...7a4a78c22.html
I am surprised by this statement. Is this the reason given by the authorities to shoot the bear?Quote:
Originally Posted by David Smith
Sabyasachi
Sabyasachi,
The bear was killed because authorities thought it might be unnaturally aggressive (see my previous post and link). See also the link in Bill's post directly above yours for more info on the attack. I think Dave's statement is more applicable to the old, injured, or rare predatory animal, rather than the one in this case.
Death is just part of the wilderness experience. Going out in 'the wild' is and should be totally an at your own risk situation. You get lost, tough luck. Quit wasting money and resources looking for folks who don't return on time. There are no locations in the lower 48 where a reasonably healtyh person can't walk out to a road within two days. You get hurt or fall off a cliff, that is your problem. Not a public spending spree while getting a hundred people looking for you.
With todays mentality Jim Bridger would not be allowed in the National Forests.
Too bad the guy got killed, but this stuff happens. Just mark it up to 'one of those things' and go back to normal until it happens again. Leave the bears alone and hope for the best.
