They Got The Bear That Killed Hunter

Urban expansion really is not the issue in as so much as the oil and gas expansion into Grizz habitat is.
Click to expand...

While urban expansion may not create the footprint that the other industries do in our wilderness areas, increasing populations are what's driving all of the industries that are encroaching upon our wilderness areas. It's easy to point the finger at industry but every time you turn on a light switch or start the car to run to the store, you too are responsible for loss of habitat. I didn't bring this up to point fingers but just to point out that habitat is disappearing and despite the disbelief of some....it is a fact. Bears, especially grizzlies, typically don't do well as human population desities increase and there is bound to be conflicts of which the bears will be the ultimate losers.
 
Camp Cook said:
I love threads like this... :)

I totally support Geologist's view he is one of the few on this site that ventures out more than almost anyone else on here.

He goes by Geologist because he is one, I totally respect his thoughts in regards to these issues.

I agree with not branding all bears as man eaters but in most cases when a bear has killed and eaten a human if it cannot be removed to a remote area where it will not encounter humans again it should be destroyed.

It is not worth the risk that it could attack another human.
Click to expand...

WAIT A SECOND CAMP COOK! Are you starting to relax your initial kill em all attitude?

I agree with not branding all bears as man eaters but in most cases when a bear has killed and eaten a human if it cannot be removed to a remote area where it will not encounter humans again it should be destroyed.


So are you now saying that this family of bear's could have been given a chance had the wildlife boys only darted them and relocated them to a remote place which according to Geo,,, there is PLENTY...

Which is it guys,,

Is it kill any and all bears that regardless of reason killed a human?

Or do we give it a chance after first blood to relocate it and hope for the best?

"Remember we are talking about Alberta's Grizz, which rightly or wrongly is on or close to being on the endangered list...." Not the plentiful french black bears out in que,,,

I am sure that by assuming All bear's are automatically a hunter man-eater just because one individual happens to be killed by a chance encounter and we kill it, then we are not doing them any justice.

Now this bear only killed one person, but many here more knowledgable about the incident than I seem to be certain that this was or would have been a problem bear. Well then I cannot totally disagree with killing it, however are we to be this certain with all future one kill shows with regard to other bears..?

If so, then like I have said b4, with the Grizz being what it is in AB, and our rate of habitat encrouchment then it will not be long b4 the Grizz is history.







Now look boys, don't you see your hipocracy.
 
sheephunter said:
While urban expansion may not create the footprint that the other industries do in our wilderness areas, increasing populations are what's driving all of the industries that are encroaching upon our wilderness areas. It's easy to point the finger at industry but every time you turn on a light switch or start the car to run to the store, you too are responsible for loss of habitat. I didn't bring this up to point fingers but just to point out that habitat is disappearing and despite the disbelief of some....it is a fact. Bears, especially grizzlies, typically don't do well as human population desities increase and there is bound to be conflicts of which the bears will be the ultimate losers.
Click to expand...


I ain't pointing fingers as such, I know the two reasons go hand in hand. I work in the oil industry and am marvelled at how joe immigrant in the big city thinks it magic when he squeezes the gas pump and magically pours out gas?:)

Most people (Anities and Conservationalist) have no idea what is involved to get that gas, or the energy needed to turn that light bulb on while they write hate letters to government under that habitat wrecking light trying to shut down our sport.

Industry has to rape mother earth to get that gas, that is just a bloody fact. I am neither for nor against our current process, it simply is the only one at the moment which will feed the human machine, so looks like to that end we are all guilty of making the Grizz go away..
 
Now this bear only killed one person, but many here more knowledgable about the incident than I seem to be certain that this was or would have been a problem bear. Well then I cannot totally disagree with killing it, however are we to be this certain with all future one kill shows with regard to other bears..?
Click to expand...

As someone who has spent a lot of my working career in bear habitat, I have to say I am much less tolerant of bears which associate humans with food ie. get food from our packs or camps, let alone one who has killed a human being.

So yes, if a bear kills a human being it is safe to assume that I will consider it a problem bear.
 
hmm there are 2 types of people in this thread, those of us that live and deal with "bears" daily and those that live in condos and deal with ........Ill have to think about that anyhow , regardless a sow with cubs kills a person or even livestock for that matter it can and will become habituated to that scenario, Id dust the cubs as well, or WAIT would yopu rather they get shredded by a dominant male bear in that area as they have no deffence anymore, or maybe its your idea that they be left to starve to death? good plan, but hey we could just let them live so picking off hunters, geoligists, miners etc becomes a habbit tought to the cubs? I could argue this for hours afterall I actualy live with the bears and deal with them on a daily basis but why if I had to explain the antis just wouldnt understand! and if you think for 1 second oil/mining or logging are taking away from the bears then you realy need to learn a few facts before you call anyone a retard around here, the reason wildlife MOVES into several areas is oil/minimg and logging but then thats just a small fact dating back to the 40s and 50s before moose and bears were even in most areas ;)


HEY Camp....were comin for that record you set ;)
sat Oct 11 7'5" interior bear 2 day hunt ;)
n733520926_1358568_3185.jpg
 
Last edited:
K98,
not sure if it was mentioned here yet or not but they had been tracking that Sow with dogs for several days. It was killed on the Doc Mills road or the near vicinity, the cubs were not with her.

We had a calf killed by a grizzly right by my Grandparents house. Grampa went out to see why the cows were all pressed up against the fence in the wee hours of the morning. He came face to face with that bear and was very lucky to be able to back away to the house. The Lady who helped me get into hunting was charged point blank by a huge Grizz that was eating her calf. Lucky for her she had her Ross rifle. That one hangs on the wall at the Olds F&W office now. They had the balls to issue her a written warning for shooting it even though all that separated them was a willow bush and it was trying to get at her! She is one of the most moral and ethical hunters I know of, there is no way she would have killed it if she didn't have to. She has shooed other bears out of her yard with a broom so her kids could get on the school bus.
In instances like this it is still Old west IMO. Kill or get killed. The Elkton hall was said to be filled with over 150 very irate locals tearing the DNR a new one for not having four hides on the stretching board yet. Tough situation to call but I would have shot them. There are way more bear out there than they say. Just ask Davey about the "good times" he has enjoyed with them.
They have one mood and it ain't a good one.
 
Gee I don't know where I got my info, must be the Zionist controlled media I guess.
Click to expand...

Hard to say. My guess was the Disney channel :)

99.99 percent of bears are not hostile. The ones who are get shot. The ones who are not go on their merry.

It's really not that complex. The bear populations stay healthy, the human populations stay healthy, everyone's happy. Except ole walt of course :)
 
K98ACTION said:
WAIT A SECOND CAMP COOK! Are you starting to relax your initial kill em all attitude?

I agree with not branding all bears as man eaters but in most cases when a bear has killed and eaten a human if it cannot be removed to a remote area where it will not encounter humans again it should be destroyed.


So are you now saying that this family of bear's could have been given a chance had the wildlife boys only darted them and relocated them to a remote place which according to Geo,,, there is PLENTY...

Which is it guys,,

Is it kill any and all bears that regardless of reason killed a human?

Or do we give it a chance after first blood to relocate it and hope for the best?

"Remember we are talking about Alberta's Grizz, which rightly or wrongly is on or close to being on the endangered list...." Not the plentiful french black bears out in que,,,

I am sure that by assuming All bear's are automatically a hunter man-eater just because one individual happens to be killed by a chance encounter and we kill it, then we are not doing them any justice.

Now this bear only killed one person, but many here more knowledgable about the incident than I seem to be certain that this was or would have been a problem bear. Well then I cannot totally disagree with killing it, however are we to be this certain with all future one kill shows with regard to other bears..?

If so, then like I have said b4, with the Grizz being what it is in AB, and our rate of habitat encrouchment then it will not be long b4 the Grizz is history.

Now look boys, don't you see your hipocracy.
Click to expand...

WOW every so often one comes out of the wood work ranting emotionally...

So to keep this simple for yeah the short answer so you don't misunderstand or try to play with my words again is NO...

In the case of these bears I would have killed all of them.

Sorry BoneZ your bear though it is big is still 6" shorter than the one I shot this June which means even though mine was a spring bear and this is a fattened up fall bear mine probably still weighed 200lbs more. :D
 
K98 first off bears flourish after humans have been in an area logging blocks etc create habbitat, along with and especialy old burns, relocating a bear has been unsuccesfull more than once in the past and in reality is a huge amount of money to deal with, ask Gatehouse or Wilson about relocating bears from Whistler BC they always come back, Kitimat and area as well, they moved a grizz 700 miles down the coast in Kitimat a few years ago 3 weeks to the day that bear was back.

I understand what your saying about the Alberta grizz population but #1 its killed a human now it knows there easy prey , remember the bear is a age old killing machine like the great white shark etc and they will do it again there is no brain activity to tell it that it has done wrong, the #1 problem with relocating a bear is other bears, these are territorial animals as well, and unless the relocated bear is of such size and strength it will get its butt handed to it by every bear it encounters in a new area so are we realy helping the bear no we are sentancing it to death in some cases and others a life of missery until it gets home, were in the end death is all thats awaiting because it came back.
and remember there are alot more bears than science lets on, the tree huggers want bear hunting stopped so they will manipulate and BS anyone they have to to get the numbers there happy with, as well its NOT a growing trend anywere that bears are destroyed its been the same for quite a few years now all over the west.


Sorry BoneZ your bear though it is big is still 6" shorter than the one I shot this June which means even though mine was a spring bear and this is a fattened up fall bear mine probably still weighed 200lbs more.
Click to expand...

yea but I know were theres more ;)
 
Relocating bears involves a lot more factors than that. The biggest being the age of the bear. Younger bears without established home ranges actually seem to relocate quite well. Not making a case for the Alberta bear here but bear relocation is a bit more complex than they all come back. Some do but many don't.

As for loss of habitat attracting bears.....there is a case to be made for some logging activities actually improving habitat for some species but unfortunately, it also increases access for humans which ultimately leads to more bear/human conflict. I know you'd love the world to be black and white but unfortunately, there's a lot of grey!
 
Last edited:
well acording to bios in BC alot more come back than stay and the ones that stay often end up dead by a rival male in that area, yes logging does open up areas to humans no argument there but in BC NOW and I say NOW because its just became manditory to deac an area beyond beleif, yes its sticc accesable by atv and a pile of fuel but not as readily available to trucks any more, regardless in the end a bear that kills a human IMHO needs to be destroyed especialy a sow with cubs, the last thing anyonew wants is a habituated bear teaching its offspring its ok to take people out, and yes at the same time some people need to be a bit more aware of the area there in and deal with it better, common sence is always a key black and white factor ;)
 
As I said, no arguement about killing bears that cause problems but management of these large predators is a very complex issue and BC is going to start seeing the same problems as Alberta as oil and gas heats up, especially along the east slope. BC has a lot of wilderness left but Alberta does not. It's hard to find an area in this prvince that isn't scared with roads and cuttlines and it's this access that has been identified as one of the greatest mortality factors for grizzlies. The big question is, as we push ever deeper into the wilderness with our homes, farms, golf courses, oil wells, cutblocks, etc., can humans and grizzlies co-exist........the answer may be no.
 
Given the Eastern slopes Grizzly's typical range it is very intresting that this Sow and 3 cubs had moved into the area that was made vacant last year when that other Grizz was removed.(Killed Hunter, got shot)
 
I guess the question that begs asking here though Ike is what is typical range? These bears were quite at home in the river valleys of the prairies a couple hundred years ago. It was man's intolerance that drove them to the mountains. I know every time a bear shows up in what some consider marginal habitat, they claim that bear populations are increasing and that bears are being forced to move further east.....I'm not sure I buy into it.

There are questions that will never be answered about this sow. What was going on where she used to live? Was there new oil/gas activity or logging. Perhaps she was forced from her home range by human activity. We all know what's going on to the west. Possibly with three cubs to feed she needed an easier source of protien....ie domestic livestock. I think there are just way too many scenario to say she moved because we have too many bears. Either way, she was a problem bear and needed to be dealt with.
 
I couldn't answer what a typical range is.

I think that area is prime Grizzly habitat but what I find interesting is how fast the area in question was re-populated. There is always going to be overlap but it is unlikely the sow was ranging there last year when the boar was alive.

It appears that they are moving back into the foothills and low lands becuase the mtn ranges are spoken for. Just my opinion but we shall see what happens over the next few years.
 
Ya, who knows if she was there or not but sow range and boar range are two completely different things. Sows typically inhabit a smaller area than a boar and typically don't work to defend that range and often share it with other sows. Boars do have large home ranges and other than areas where food is very abundant, will to some degree protect it but even that is likely over stated. The overlap between sows and boars is 100%....being that the two ranges are not unique. In fact, several sows will likely call a single boar's range home. The fact that a boar was killed would have very little bearing on a sow's movements as far as establishing home ranges goes.

When young boars show up in more populated areas I'd buy into the fact that they are looking for a quiet place to call home away from other boars but when a mature sow moves to a new range I'd suspect there were human influences involved.
 
I guess the question that begs asking here though Ike is what is typical range? These bears were quite at home in the river valleys of the prairies a couple hundred years ago. It was man's intolerance that drove them to the mountains.
Click to expand...

Well they're coming back down now :) THey're in the upper squamish, they're over by merritt etc, they're expanding not shrinking.

I don't know about places other than bc, but here logging has definitely opened up more territory for the bears, both black and griz.

And we generally know better than to relocate bears of any age if they've been a genuine problem. Where it has been tried, it's often lead to disaster. Once a bear steps over the line, there's really little you can do but destroy them unfortunately. If they're just hanging somewhere they shouldn't be, that's different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom