This is topic Fatal Bear attack in forum Member forum at The New Huntmastersbbs!.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://www.huntmastersbbs.com/cgi-bin/cgi-ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=002842
Posted by Paul Melching (Member # 885) on July 07, 2011, 06:04 AM:
http://news.yahoo.com/grizzly-bear-kills-yellowstone-hiker-223309866.html
Posted by Possumal (Member # 823) on July 07, 2011, 06:49 AM:
It seems to me that it might not be too smart to allow hiking when those bears have young cubs.
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on July 07, 2011, 08:05 AM:
.....or require they be armed.
Posted by Okanagan (Member # 870) on July 07, 2011, 09:12 AM:
A black bear killed a woman in her back yard a few days ago near Lillooet, BC. I heard about it through friends who live there. It didn't look like it was going to make the news but then a city newspaper ran a front page story on it, still only regional news.
One Fall there were several grizzly attacks in northern BC, and not one made any kind of news. The guides/outfitters and local people from mayor to hospital workers all want to keep such stuff out of the news to keep from scaring off tourists. fishermen and hunters, which are a major part of the economy. I only knew about it because of a guide friend who worked there, and all of the attacks were in a fairly small region, only a piece of northern BC.
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on July 07, 2011, 09:27 AM:
I have a comment on the policy. To let the mother bear go because .....bla bla bla, is completely irresponsible. We have to get away from this cult of nature trumping humanity. That they allow a killer bear to roam in a well traveled area is ludicrous. Criminal.
gh....lb
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on July 07, 2011, 09:34 AM:
quote:
It seems to me that it might not be too smart to allow hiking when those bears have young cubs.
--------------------
Al Prather
Foxpro Field Staff
BUT. This is the same type of thinking, protect an offending animal(s) at the expense of humans.
Several years ago, a lion attacked and mauled a little girl in Casper's regional park. The authorities solution was: (are you ready for this?)
Children not allowed in the park!
Maybe it's changed, I don't know?
Kill the damned lion! We already have them coming out our ears. Idiocy!
gh....lb
Posted by Dan Carey (Member # 987) on July 07, 2011, 09:50 AM:
There are too many people in my country, I say feed some of them to the bears.
Posted by Nikonut (Member # 188) on July 07, 2011, 01:46 PM:
Now there's a solution that could work! Put them on buses and tell them they are going to the petting zoo.
Give these "save the animals" loons a front row seat. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Possumal (Member # 823) on July 07, 2011, 01:53 PM:
Leonard, all I'm saying is that if you are going to have bears, and they are going to have cubs, you need to watch what goes on in those areas a bit closer. Either that or go out and kill all the female bears who have cubs because they are going to defend their territory and offspring.
Posted by 3 Toes (Member # 1327) on July 07, 2011, 02:17 PM:
Al, since bears will keep cubs for up to 2 years, there isn't a time of year that at least some females won't have cubs with them.
People just need to realize that if your are in bear country, there is a chance that you can become bear shit. But I agree with LB in that once a bear kills or maims someone, it should be a dead bear.
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on July 07, 2011, 10:26 PM:
And, I believe we are allowed weapons in National Parks, now? It should be REQUIRED!
gh....lb
Posted by 3 Toes (Member # 1327) on July 08, 2011, 04:21 AM:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, I believe we are allowed weapons in National Parks, now? It should be REQUIRED!
LB, have you seen some of the people that visit nat. parks?
Posted by Paul Melching (Member # 885) on July 08, 2011, 06:19 AM:
The people that visit natnl. parks?
usually if near a river, speedo and gold chains,near the lodge or gift shop pants made from fabric better suited to drapes or shorts with dress shoes and black socks around the knees. Generally frogs or lugerheads.
Posted by Possumal (Member # 823) on July 08, 2011, 08:53 AM:
Cal, aren't the mother bears more protective of their cubs when they are very young, something about the boars being a threat to kill them to force the females to come into heat again?
No question that the authorities usually kill any wild animal who attacks a human, and that is understandable. I don't believe I'd want to hike in areas where I could end up being attacked if I wasn't fully armed. I'm not sure how safe I'd feel if all I had was a pistol.
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on July 08, 2011, 09:15 AM:
Well, like they say; you only have to run faster than those fairies in their lederhosen.
Cal, I have not been to a National Park since I was a teenager.
gh....lb
Posted by jimanaz (Member # 3689) on July 08, 2011, 10:15 AM:
Sometimes you guys amaze me. This particular bear was just being a bear and doing what comes natural. That's what the Yellowstone experience is all about, right? If I pick up a rattler by the tail and it bites me, should we call out the cavalry to hunt it down and kill it? This doofus probably had no business being out by himself with or without a weapon. There are so many written warnings all over Yellowstone about bear activity and every park rep will tell you the same thing. If you can't handle yourself, stay in the fucking car or with a group and guide.
Rogue bears are a different story.
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on July 08, 2011, 11:02 AM:
Oh yeah? Well, sometimes YOU amaze me.
gh....lb
Posted by Nikonut (Member # 188) on July 08, 2011, 02:43 PM:
I'd have to agree the momma bear should not be killed but should be trapped along with her cubs and moved to a more remote location... that way we won't have to look at the bodies! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on July 08, 2011, 03:36 PM:
I couldn't disagree more strongly. To hell with the bear, she won't hesitate to kill any human that gets in her way.
As some of these people that frequent National Parks have said, tourists are oblivious to the potential danger. If they sleep with their ham sandwich outside, it could happen with any grizzly, any black bear.
But, coupled with a known killer bear, these administrators have rocks in their head.
Look, they tried for years to relocate black bears from Yosemite Valley eating the Camp Curry garbage every friggin' night. It didn't matter how far they "relocated" them, they found their way back to the garbage dump.
I guess they relocated 3 sea lions from the mouth of the Columbia river that were killing every salmon that the indians didn't net so they finally dumped them 900 miles south and they were back within a week.
Relocating these large carnivores doesn't work. But, that is when they are tipping over trash cans, not killing tourists. I mean really! Bears just doing what bears do! I can't believe people think like that?
In fact, I think it was a boneheaded decision to introduce grizzlies to Yellowstone, in the first place. Or wolves too, for that matter. It's not a "natural" environment, and wishful thinking won't make it so. These are desires of bunny huggers, fuzzy thinking and for the life of me, I can't see where it enhances the Park experience to have man eaters in close proximity with naive tourists.
What an adventure to tell your neighbors...."Wow! How cool! My husband/dad was eaten by a grizzly"
gh....lb
[ July 08, 2011, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: Leonard ]
Posted by Cdog911 (Member # 7) on July 08, 2011, 03:47 PM:
I guess it all depends upon why the parks were established in the first place. Preserve wild lands, or promote tourism? Do you think Roosevelt envisioned that many stupid people infiltrating the parks? Hell, he even had at least one gun close by at all times. From what I've read in follow up, this couple saw the bears and chose to continue forward, closing the gap, ignoring the advice posted all around them. Darwinian selection, I guess. Non-Bambi-esque Bear - 1, Bait - 0.
Posted by Nikonut (Member # 188) on July 08, 2011, 03:50 PM:
Leonard... I agree with you!
That was meant to be sarcasm!!!LOL
quote:
I'd have to agree the momma bear should not be killed but should be trapped along with her cubs and moved to a more remote location... that way we won't have to look at the bodies!
Edit for spelling
[ July 08, 2011, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: Nikonut ]
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on July 08, 2011, 04:03 PM:
I promise you, the policy is to promote tourism. They want those idiots in flip-flops hiking the trails.
They have a 300 mile long National Park in South Africa and I have toured most of it. You are advised to not get out of your vehicle and every year, a few do, and are promptly eaten. It is crazy to be out of your vehicle, yet I did it, early one morning to pick up a leopard tortoise. My wife freaked. And, did I really know it was safe? No. But, they have dangerous animals. A Park ranger will take you on a morning nature walk, and he has a 458WinMag, I kid you not.
They do everything possible to protect the idiots, (like me) but at least they know the score.
In Yellowstone, it's the same potential danger except ALL the idiots are walking around eating their ham sandwich, oblivious. I don't understand?
gh....lb
Posted by jimanaz (Member # 3689) on July 08, 2011, 04:56 PM:
quote:
The couple saw the bear twice on their hike, according to Yellowstone spokesman Al Nash. The second time, the bear charged them and the couple ran, according to a press release. “The bear caught up with them, attacking Mr. Matayoshi. The beear then went over to Mrs. Matayoshi, who had fallen to the ground nearby. The bear bit her daypack, lifting her from the ground and then dropping her. She remained still and the bear left the area.”
Here's your sign.
Posted by the bearhunter (Member # 3552) on July 08, 2011, 05:15 PM:
relocation don't work. kill the female and keep their mouth shut about it. i've been around 100's of bears at very close range and a momma with babies still gets me nervous. i've seen first hand how fast the switch can be flipped my a momma and it's FAST. i've been bowhunting bear for 27 years straight. average of 10 days a year and have only carried a side arm about a dozen times. my average shot is about 7-8 yards and i sit 7-8 feet up. unless i was cocked and pointed, i would stand NO chance if momma wanted to GET TO ME.
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on July 08, 2011, 06:08 PM:
Yes, that's exactly what they do out here. They talk all warm fuzzy and relocating bears and lions where they won't get in any more trouble, but in actuality, don't tell anybody but, they kill them. You can't just drop a lion, (for instance) in another animal's territory. They get run off, and run off and eventually, killed.
Jimanez, I'm mystified by your last sentence? Puzzled, don't understand what you mean?
gh....lb
Posted by jimanaz (Member # 3689) on July 08, 2011, 06:35 PM:
STUPID!!
edit:
To further clarify and avoid additional confusion.. the sign would be for the couple who weren't satisfied with seeing the bears once and survivng the experience unscathed. Oh no, let's go on despite all the warnings and REALLY have a wondeful nature experience.
The bear was NOT a "fucking turd".
[ July 08, 2011, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: jimanaz ]
Posted by smithers (Member # 646) on July 08, 2011, 07:45 PM:
A lady I work with came home from Yellowstone the day before the bear ate the guy. She was talking about the
COMPLETE IDIOTS crawling over burned out trees in their flip flops to get CLOSER to a mother and it's cubs. I was dumbfounded.
Should the bear have been killed that ate the Grizzly Man? Was it killed? You guys that want this bear killed were probably praising the bear that ate that IDIOT. A bear was doing what a bear does. You fuck with a bear, a buffalo or
a moose and it will fuck with you right back, provoked or unprovoked. The difference is, you won't live to tell the story and it will.
Mr. Miyagi shoulda followed Bushido code. Sayonara, asswipe.
Edit: if my sig line was his mantra, he'd still be eating sushi instead of being sushi.
[ July 08, 2011, 08:21 PM: Message edited by: smithers ]
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on July 08, 2011, 08:27 PM:
Okay, I see, and agree. But the issue is a little more complex. Yes, yes, a bear doing what bears do. But with all those idiots communing with nature, you cannot allow a friggin' grizzly that has tasted blood to roam around and likely do it again.
That's a very common and defendable policy. A bear that has killed a human, it's really a no brainer. The bear has to lose, simply to protect the idiots from themselves.
I have no sympathy for stupidity and there is no revenge in my view. It's a simple question. Get rid of the bear before she kills somebody else. And, the odds say it will happen. What are you going to do say; Oh well it wasn't the bears fault? Doesn't matter if they were advancing towards the bear and deserved what they got.
The next person may not do anything to provoke an attack, but if you think this bear is going to let bygones be bygones, you are mistaken.
that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
gh....lb
Posted by smithers (Member # 646) on July 08, 2011, 08:56 PM:
The bear probably didn't see the guy as a meal but as a threat. There's a difference. If she went after him strictly as an hors d'oeuvre, then yeah, shoot the bear. But in this case it MAULED and fatally WOUNDED the guy. It didn't set out to snack on human flesh. (I hope)
[ July 08, 2011, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: smithers ]
Posted by jimanaz (Member # 3689) on July 08, 2011, 09:32 PM:
What Smithers said. That bear didn't feed after she took the guy down, she split after the threat was neutralized. She didn't develop a taste for human blood. As Geordie said, I'm for Darwinism. Same as with cops, don't create a situation that's likely to become unhealthy.
Posted by Dan Carey (Member # 987) on July 08, 2011, 09:35 PM:
How many more of the dumbfounded dipshits are the bears going to have to eat before we get to kill them..
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on July 08, 2011, 09:36 PM:
I luv ya like a son, but you're a pin head.
Posted by Dan Carey (Member # 987) on July 08, 2011, 09:40 PM:
LOL
Posted by jimanaz (Member # 3689) on July 08, 2011, 09:53 PM:
They're not allowed to eat ANY dipshits, Dan. Dipshit or not, eating is not allowed.
I appreciate the gesture Leonard, and you are entitled to your opinion. I've been called worse and lived to tell about it. Jacking around with sows protecting cubs is an entirely different matter. Predictably, Ursus Horribilus is the victor. Learn it, live it.
[ July 08, 2011, 10:14 PM: Message edited by: jimanaz ]
Posted by Okanagan (Member # 870) on July 15, 2011, 06:32 PM:
Been travelling some and chekcing in sporadically.
There's a foothill area of private ranches a good many miles outside of a popular national park. Park Service bear trappers release problem grizzlies there. I was there last year when a grizzly killed a Hereford cow. Strangely enough, those bears rarely return to the park where they were trapped.
A corollary story from my recent ramblings over there: a rancher evidently killed a grizzly there not long ago and buried it with his backhoe tractor. The next day a bear researcher showed up with a game warden and dug up the bear... to retrieve a radio tracking device!
Posted by knockemdown (Member # 3588) on July 15, 2011, 07:03 PM:
quote:
The next day a bear researcher showed up with a game warden and dug up the bear... to retrieve a radio tracking device!
WHOOPSY DAISY!!!
GIFSoup
[ July 15, 2011, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: knockemdown ]
UBB.classicTM
6.3.0