fishinhogdaddy Posted October 10, 2008 Posted October 10, 2008 I just saw on the news that fish and wildlife have hunted down and shot the mother of three cubs that mauled the guy a few weeks back. WHY? Isn't it OUR risk to go out in their habitat? I guess not... Now the valley is minus four beautiful, majestic beings. Sad..... FHD Quote
Nick0Danger Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 According the the CO's that bear was way out of its range . I know the family did not want the Bear to die, they said he knew the risk and was bow hunting. Quote
LynnF Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 Did they kill the cubs as well? Might as well have if they killed the mom. Just plain wrong. Quote
mwalters Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 Doesn't really make sense for them to say the bear was "out of it's range" since they're wild animals & go where ever they choose to. They should have said the bears were outside their "normal home range". Still not a good reason to kill her no matter how you say it. As for the cubs, if they've never denned before, they probably won't survive the winter. If they do, they'll probably be so weak that they'll easily fall pray to a larger animal. Very sad story Quote
toolman Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 And if the CO's did not shoot the bear and it attacked another person a few days later, everyone would blame the CO's, for not doing anything...Lose/Lose situation for the bears and the CO's... Quote
LynnF Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 And if the CO's did not shoot the bear and it attacked another person a few days later, everyone would blame the CO's, for not doing anything...Lose/Lose situation for the bears and the CO's... that's absolutely the truth....... Quote
hydropsyche Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 When its a Tiger, they call them "man eaters". Can bears turn into man eaters? Its a cruel world. Quote
Taco Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 likely overly aggressive behavior and in a populated area, don't forget she did kill somebody... too bad grizzlies always seem to come out a poor second Quote
snakeman Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 And now I guess they're trying to decide what to do about the cubs. Killing their mother just made them more dangerous. This isn't as bad as the story I read last week of a cougar killed near Windermere. I guess some seniors were out walking their little dogs (a schnauzer and shitzu) when a cougar appears, snatches a dog and makes off with it. So CO's tracked down the cougar and killed it. Ridiculous. Quote
snakeman Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 And if the CO's did not shoot the bear and it attacked another person a few days later, everyone would blame the CO's, for not doing anything...Lose/Lose situation for the bears and the CO's... Could they not have just relocated the sow and her cubs? Although I guess that would require money, which Alberta's Fish and Wildlife branch doesn't have... Quote
mwalters Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 Could they not have just relocated the sow and her cubs? Although I guess that would require money, which Alberta's Fish and Wildlife branch doesn't have... Relocating a bear is a lot more stressful on the bears then originally believed so they don't like to do it as often as they used to. I've heard that relocated bears have a 75-80% mortality rate. Then they'd have to try to catch the 3 cubs to go with her, sometimes they wander off when mom gets caught. Makes it hard to reunite them. The family bear trap they got last year helps with that, don't know if they've tried it with such a large family though. Quote
Taco Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 In reality it's pretty easy for us to sit here and speculate but I do know that F+W does not take the euthanization of a female grizzly lightly. If I had to guess I would say the cubs were close to weaning age and mama was overtly aggressive. Tough call, I wouldn't wanna make it. Quote
Weedy1 Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 From: http://www.albertalocalnews.com/reddeeradv...zly_hunted.html Published: October 06, 2008 12:22 PM (Before they found the Bear) "Ealey said the cubs are believed to be more than a year old and possibly 18 months old. Cubs generally stay with their mother for as long as two years." "He said it was too early to determine if the sow would be shot and what would happen with the cubs if they are captured or located." Published: Saturday, October 11, 2008 (After they found and shot the Bear) From: http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/c...f2-16f2ed648cb6 "When there is a predatory attack that results in a (human) killing, policy is that bear is euthanized," said Duncan MacDonnell, spokesman for Sustainable Resource Development. "Once a bear considers humans as fair prey, that's a very dangerous situation." MacDonnell said they chose to destroy the bear rather than relocate it because evidence from the scene suggests it was a "predatory" attack. Officials are now searching for the animal's three cubs, believed to be 18 to 30 months old, MacDonnell said. They are considered old enough to survive on their own. So there you have it. The cubs are somewhere between possibly a year to 30 months old. My guess is they won't survive, but then again that's nature and whether you like it or not WE are part of it. As much as I would have liked to seen this group of Bears survive, if a Grizzly has to be put down due to a predatory attack that results in a human being maimed or killed then I have no problem with that. Better the Bear than our children or friends. Quote
Guest RedWiggler Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 The way I see it is if you can still hunt bears in Alberta then putting one down because it killed a guy MUST be acceptable??????????? I was in denial about bear hunting up until about a month ago when I was in a store and a hunter walked in asking the store clerk for info on were ther bears are because he was hunting them, my response (like and idiot) was "you can hunt bears here?" I guess I thought because there are low numbers of bears left that they were just left alone. I honestly did not know you could kill bears for fun around here, which I personally think is totally messed up. I am not against hunting I am just against hunting animals that do not need to be hunted........like bears. Quote
dube Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 My biggest problem with this whole scenario is that wild animals are given capital punishment for overly aggressive behavior towards humans but humans who exhibit far more disturbing and violent behavior on each other for seemingly no reason whatsoever are examined and detained for psychiatric treatment. Who's a bigger risk to society on the whole: a sow grizzly feeling bitchy during the fall or some psycho who randomly cuts of the head off a fellow bus passenger ? AND then we have to pay for the sucker to sit in a cell for the rest of his pitiful life. SAD. Sometimes I wonder what gives us the right. Just watch the news for 2 seconds- we're a bunch of friggen animals shooting stabbing abusing day after day. If only it were as easy as tracking offenders down and euthanizing them. my .02$ Quote
dube Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 How is it a leap? The bear displayed aggressive behavior and they killed it to prevent her from doing it again. Based on the fact that she was found in a populated area and chances were good it could happen again, like you said if the CO's never took care of her and she mauled someone else heads would roll. Do you think that violent humans are are more susceptible to rehabilitation? Quote
reevesr1 Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 A black bear killed a mountain biker in Panorama last year. Killed her and spent 18 hrs or so eating her until she was located. The bear had been in the area, and there were some reports of it becoming aggressive, but it had not actually done anything to warrant it's removal. Until of course it killed the biker. The family of the girl blame Pano for not doing anything about the bear. Not sure that if it had been my kid, my response wouldn't have been the same. I agree that bears are magnificent creatures. But if they kill someone, or become aggressive near populated areas, something has to be done. Period. Terrible fate for the bear, but there are few, if any, options here. Quote
dube Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 Why don't they just put them in a zoo for 5 to 10 and then let 'em out and see if they are better? Of course I'm being facetious but it seems to me there is a bit of a double standard. I just don't understand the mentality sometimes. Less red tape to execute an animal I suppose. I'm not sticking up for the bear, it's an obvious solution to a serious problem, so why then....... Quote
dube Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 O.k I got it....... Take head chopper, truck him out to the foothills and put him in a no rules cage match with murderin' grizz and let it go til one or the other is dead. You could have it tournament style and just keep replacing the contestants. Quote
Weedy1 Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 O.k I got it....... Take head chopper, truck him out to the foothills and put him in a no rules cage match with murderin' grizz and let it go til one or the other is dead. You could have it tournament style and just keep replacing the contestants. Kimbo Slice could be the towel boy. Pay Per View would make a killing. Quote
dube Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 Fine, maybe my opinions are a tad harsh for a lovely Saturday morning but heres what I'm getting at: There are nearly 7 billion ( 7 000 000 000 000) of us 2 legged upright bastards roaming this planet shitting wherever we feel like it, because we have the brains to do so; consciously. Other species are facing extinction on a daily basis as a direct result of our relentless growth. Someone here must know the estimated grizz population in north america. To me an eye for an eye hardly seems fair. I feel for anyone who loses a loved one for any reason but thats the point, this particular man could have died driving to where he was mauled to death. Again you can't really have a wild animal loose in urban areas attacking people but I think it's a joke how the clear solution doesn't extend to us as if we matter more in the great scheme of things. My apologies for the derail. Quote
snakeman Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 It's true, there really is no balance in the world, that's what you get with us humans convinced that we run the show. It's really awful what happened to this man and I feel terrible for his family, but I guess destroy the bear was the easiest 'solution' to the problem. In cases like this the basic human reaction is always eye-for-an-eye. Quote
toolman Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 Killing the bear was not an act of revenge, but in the interest of public saftey. This attack was predatory, not defensive. SRD did the right thing. Now they are setting live traps to try and capture/relocate the cubs. Very responsible actions in my opinion. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.