MUST READ about Grizzly - Jim Shockey's post re death of mother and baby daughter

[bigredchev]

Shockey for Prime Minister...

My fellow hunting partner and I were talking how he might just go into politics somehow. He's defiantly upping his stature as a spokesperson for outdoors people more and more.



This year up north we saw more grizz than moose in a 2 week hunt. Grizz numbers are increasing and the removal of bc's grizz hunt was wasn't huge mistake

 

[hoytcanon]

I think the point is how it is shrinking, and the result of that is, in his view as well as many others, a big factor in why this woman and baby lost their lives.

Edit to add - "his world" is the world of all hunters and like-minded outdoors people. The "other world" is the world of the city person who has no idea of the concept that we are part of nature. That world is driving the changes that negatively affect our world.


Not to put any words into Ardent's mouth, but that's my take.

I think Ardent would concur.

 

[Ardent]

Yep well explained 1899, I saw stew’s comment and read through his intent on twisting back to a narrative far from how I see it. Was about to start travelling home and had little interest in engaging as his mind is already clearly made. You explained it well.

 

[medvedqc]

i still disagree. Jim was not right to explain that a dangerous bear was in his place. dlp rules were clear and the so called dangerous should have been shot.

for the rest of the economic part i wont say a word but up to the time there is an increase on grizzly bear hunting it shoulf benefit first to the residents before the outfitters.

Jim Shockey has already a very generous quota on his hunting area.

 

[boren]

I can understand Jims anguish I guess you can call it. Shoulda shot the bear and left it. Would have saved mom and baby. Blaming himself. And he should. Not being mean spirited. It's tuff

 

[medvedqc]

I can understand Jims anguish I guess you can call it. Shoulda shot the bear and left it. Would have saved mom and baby. Blaming himself. And he should. Not being mean spirited. It's tuff

i dot not blame jim but he should have think twice before posting it. so far no report that a bear was a problem was sent to the authorities. thus being an estate agent giving the card or dancing on graves like some others ans i has said.

 

[Kiloindiapapa]

All good points and posts. Tragic story.

 

[BigUglyMan]

I think that this thread reveals more about how people feel about Jim Shockey than anything else. If it has been written by someone that worked for Yukon Natural Resources or worked another trapline near the area none of you would take issue with it. Because it is written by Jim Shockey, a person who inspires envy among hunters to the point of inciting hatred, we feel the need to read it and search for an ulterior motive. How much extra money would he really make if the government increased the grizzly quota from 3 to 6 in that area? Personally, in his own pocket? Maybe Ardent could comment intelligently on this given his background in outfitting. I imagine that the amount would be negligible. Those extra bears would be shot by hunters who were already there hunting moose. Grand total to the business maybe $20K gross.

Jim lays out some facts in the article. There are too many bears. The bears are not afraid of people. Does anyone think that the facts he laid out were wrong?

He also points out that he warned officials of this. The cynical among us will say "yeah, but only to get his quota increased". Maybe, maybe not. But he noted the risk and advised officials. If the risk is real, he did the right thing. Only a psychopath would see a risk to human life and do nothing about it. Far from being an expert, in my brief meeting with Jim I didn't notice anything that would make me think that the man was such a psychopath. So if there are too many bears that are taking too many liberties with humans, who cares what the man's motivations might well have been? Just because you do the right thing and it benefits you, that doesn't make it the wrong thing to do.

The bottom line is this...a woman and her child were killed by a bear. I can't imagine a much worse way to go than trying to defend yourself and your infant child from a large predator. Why did it happen? Could be any number of factors...too little food, too much competition, old/sick/wounded animal, global warming keeping bears awake longer. But to dismiss someone's opinion, especially someone that knows a hell of a lot more about the conditions on the ground than almost everyone on this board, because you think that he has an ulterior motive, is to ignore your personal biases and overlook the facts.

 

[BigUglyMan]

i still disagree. Jim was not right to explain that a dangerous bear was in his place. dlp rules were clear and the so called dangerous should have been shot.

for the rest of the economic part i wont say a word but up to the time there is an increase on grizzly bear hunting it shoulf benefit first to the residents before the outfitters.

Jim Shockey has already a very generous quota on his hunting area.

I think that an average joe would likely be a little more likely to use DLP than someone who is staking his entire livelihood on the likelihood that a Conservation Officer will agree that the shooting was warranted and justified. My money says that Jim's guides and staff are on an intentionally short leash when it comes to using self defense as a justification for a shooting. If someone does something wrong and shoots a bear in a "bad shoot" Jim stands to lose absolutely everything. Outfitting business, TV deals, DVD sales, endorsements, ability to hunt personally...too much at risk to let some 25 year old kid working in the cook shack run about with little to no supervision.

 

[BlackRam]

I think we can all agree that it was a tragic event, and that none of us were there, so we cannot say exactly what transpired, or why.
And I think that we all agree that our thoughts and prayers go out to the husband and father that is dealing with this tragedy.
Because it makes so little sense to so many people who do not understand how life is for those that live, work and play in these environments, and their wildlife inhabitants, they want to lay blame on someone, or something, to justify the why of what has occurred.
A lot is made out if it because it was the deaths of a young woman and her defenseless child, by an animal. An animal that is the centre of controversy, at this time.
How many mothers and daughters were killed in car accidents on that same day around the world? Why is there no huge public outcry for them?
How many mothers and daughters were killed by crocodiles or hippos in Africa on that same day? We do not hear about those tragedies.

I also think, from the responses to this thread, that there are lots of people here frustrated with government officials forcing rules and regulations on those of us that live, work and/or play in the wild areas, based on the majority of public opinion and emotion of the urban masses, who do not understand, and are misonformed or uneducated, in the realities of life in the wild, instead of science and reason based on proper consultation with the user groups directly impcted by their decisions.

You want to argue, argue this last point together, with those government officials.
The government officials are happy that we are fighting each other, as this keeps us from fighting them, in unity!

 

[medvedqc]

I think that this thread reveals more about how people feel about Jim Shockey than anything else. If it has been written by someone that worked for Yukon Natural Resources or worked another trapline near the area none of you would take issue with it. Because it is written by Jim Shockey, a person who inspires envy among hunters to the point of inciting hatred, we feel the need to read it and search for an ulterior motive. How much extra money would he really make if the government increased the grizzly quota from 3 to 6 in that area? Personally, in his own pocket? Maybe Ardent could comment intelligently on this given his background in outfitting. I imagine that the amount would be negligible. Those extra bears would be shot by hunters who were already there hunting moose. Grand total to the business maybe $20K gross.

Jim lays out some facts in the article. There are too many bears. The bears are not afraid of people. Does anyone think that the facts he laid out were wrong?

He also points out that he warned officials of this. The cynical among us will say "yeah, but only to get his quota increased". Maybe, maybe not. But he noted the risk and advised officials. If the risk is real, he did the right thing. Only a psychopath would see a risk to human life and do nothing about it. Far from being an expert, in my brief meeting with Jim I didn't notice anything that would make me think that the man was such a psychopath. So if there are too many bears that are taking too many liberties with humans, who cares what the man's motivations might well have been? Just because you do the right thing and it benefits you, that doesn't make it the wrong thing to do.

The bottom line is this...a woman and her child were killed by a bear. I can't imagine a much worse way to go than trying to defend yourself and your infant child from a large predator. Why did it happen? Could be any number of factors...too little food, too much competition, old/sick/wounded animal, global warming keeping bears awake longer. But to dismiss someone's opinion, especially someone that knows a hell of a lot more about the conditions on the ground than almost everyone on this board, because you think that he has an ulterior motive, is to ignore your personal biases and overlook the facts.

BUM,

i will agree only on one point see at the end of my post but Jim never reported a problem with a specific bear to the authorities at large this summer/fall.

if you were chatting with the people closely involved to support that poor man you will see that maybe Jim should have wait...

the other issue is trying to imply to say that if the three years rule for every grizzly was lifted he may have shot that specific bear ... very, very poor taste on my opinion.

that is the point the outfitters know better than anybody else their territory they do not want anybody there ... and they wanrt to have their own quotas with no rules ....

i tried to speak with him but never got a reply. on that matter or some other in the pasts like the ar15 issue but that is not the point.

his quota is more complex that what he wrote sorry BUM i published the number.

there is no hate about him or other outfitters from me but let is put it that way and facts:

we need a scientific approach on management for bear not a report from an outfitter with interests nor greenies wanting to stop it, since all the public meetings i have been concerning hunting and especially bear hunting there is one outfitter that always come but never made a public comment (and this is not Jim but a very well respected local outfitter) but i never seen or heard Jim or his business partner coming. so is facebook the new way to express real issues? .... as we do not know about bear population and has the harvest is still stable with more non resident than resident taking bears we can assume that the population is doing well but that doesnt mean we need to give more. grizzly bears live in a very harsh territory and killing hunting too many may stop the effort on substainable hunting pressure for the next generation.
maybe that is the point that i miss and we should eradicate them like in most other juridictions?

im glad that i can buy OTC a grizzly and if i find the right one i will take it, there is not that much place that can offer a dangerous hunt that way for a resident nowadays.

there is on average 10 dlps a year on grizzly bear 5 by cos or and rcmp (cos job can be done by rcmp here) and 5 by citizen so again not that much ... if Jim was worried about that bear why not giving a tag to one of his guide to shoot the problem bear if dlp is a social issue?well i can tell you why he did not because one bear less on his quota and it is not about money, BUM Jim is a businessman and a very successful one nobody can say other but sometimes you have to think before posting online ...

i do not get where you or him can say there is too many bears. i can again agree on one point bears are dangerous will it be black or grizzly. for the rest i still disagree.

 

[medvedqc]

I think we can all agree that it was a tragic event, and that none of us were there, so we cannot say exactly what transpired, or why.
And I think that we all agree that our thoughts and prayers go out to the husband and father that is dealing with this tragedy.
Because it makes so little sense to so many people who do not understand how life is for those that live, work and play in these environments, and their wildlife inhabitants, they want to lay blame on someone, or something, to justify the why of what has occurred.
A lot is made out if it because it was the deaths of a young woman and her defenseless child, by an animal. An animal that is the centre of controversy, at this time.
How many mothers and daughters were killed in car accidents on that same day around the world? Why is there no huge public outcry for them?
How many mothers and daughters were killed by crocodiles or hippos in Africa on that same day? We do not hear about those tragedies.

I also think, from the responses to this thread, that there are lots of people here frustrated with government officials forcing rules and regulations on those of us that live, work and/or play in the wild areas, based on the majority of public opinion and emotion of the urban masses, who do not understand, and are misonformed or uneducated, in the realities of life in the wild, instead of science and reason based on proper consultation with the user groups directly impcted by their decisions.

You want to argue, argue this last point together, with those government officials.
The government officials are happy that we are fighting each other, as this keeps us from fighting them, in unity!

i think at least locally it is more a problem between the local residents and outfitters ... you may have to think that those outfitters do not want you on their playground because they want it all ... is it not about conservation at all ... try to rent a floatplane to go on any lakes with a GO operating that aera not even the same they are actually in of course and see how it goes. i do remember giving a list of lakes where i wanted to go and still waiting to be called back. Outfitters are buying block of hours to be sure nobody can go.

that tragedy is a tragedy is more than once and not only because this is a woman and child that some here knew that is maybe the difference. the tragedy in africa that you mentionned are tragedy too. ever met someone that lost his kids from a car crash so this is the same emotion we are talking about and if someone is coming during your mourning time that they should have an helmet in the car instead of not ... you see my point there is time for mourning and there is time for action and most of the time not at the same time ...

fighting for unity lol i really think you are not serious ... where do you see unity in hunting? there is really a difference and divergence between locals and outfitters and this is everywhere the same .. seems in BC it is not working so good...

 

[Bland]

Guide outfitters do not want competition. Shockey is no different, when they take high paying clients out they do not want to run across a grubby local hunting type. They promote their product by offering pristine exclusive hunting opportunities. Not every guide /outfitter dislikes the locals but they do like exclusivity. We are now down to a three day open moose week in our part of BC and the local guides, who I have known since they were in diapers, are very quietly pleased. We all get along well, they certainly don't crow about, but there is always an underlying competition. Shockey's comments were emotional, personal knowledge of the victims is certainly a major factor. He overstepped and started talking what ifs, that never ends well. I live in a wilderness area (not as remote as where this occurred) and worry about my wife when she is out for a walk. Constantly watching for bear sign, finally put the bird feeders out this year when I figured it was safe to do so. About a week or so later saw grizzly tracks not far away. That spooked me as that is way outside the norm around here. Really nothing left to eat. Above zero quite a bit, not much snow but the ground is frozen. Not ideal conditions for much. Shockey touches on some good points but is viewing it from his personal perspective as a guide. Hindsight (I have an honorary post doctorate in hindsight, this is given to those who practice it often) shows he forgot the real victims here and started pushing a platform which makes sense in many ways but is not appropriate given the tragedy. Cancelling the grizzly hunt was a disaster for wildlife management, we all know this. The father/husband needs our support and nothing more. Talking what ifs and could have beens does not help this guy. I am not sure I would do very well in his situation. Just thinking about upsets me deeply.

 

[daka]

I beleive that political parties and different tree hugging groups should have more liability when something like this happens. They want to protect a piece of land or an animal, fine but then everything that happens next should be their problem. If they ever paid for damages caused by wildlife on the roads, health or God forbid, death expenses, they would think twice before passing something like this. Everyone else needs to be liable then why should not them as well.

 

[MIRAMICHIER]

Should have dumped the problem Bear and these people would still be around.Just my view.Maybe stop being Sissy"s like them Townies are.

 

[calibrecarstairs]

I beleive that political parties and different tree hugging groups should have more liability when something like this happens. They want to protect a piece of land or an animal, fine but then everything that happens next should be their problem. If they ever paid for damages caused by wildlife on the roads, health or God forbid, death expenses, they would think twice before passing something like this. Everyone else needs to be liable then why should not them as well.

You spelled "responsible" wrong...