They Got The Bear That Killed Hunter

K98ACTION

K98ACTION

BANNED
BANNED
BANNED
Rating - 100%
142   0   0
Location
Alberta
OK, I CHANGED MY MIND after getting Much better info than reported in the paper, So before this thread pisses you off you should read my page 4 reply as that is where the light has come on. Condolences always for victom and family.

Yep! Leave it to the Alberta Wildlife Officials to uphold their profession by being totally STUPID! Well I did have one try to tell me that the wood duck I shot was a coot and as at the time they were protected tried to get me charged... how you mix the two up, go figure.

Seems they finally caught up to the Grizzly that recently mauled an Alberta hunter to death in south western AB.

So they shoot it from a helicopter, full well knowing that it was a Breeding sow with 3 cubs in toe. Now they are worried that the cubs may not survive. This is what was reported in the paper. I figured that to be BS as the cubs would have been shed this fall anyway.

My question is firstly why did they even have to kill the thing. It's sad yes that a human got killed but that is nature friends, especially when you accidently get in between a Grizz and her young. I ask you "HOW IS THIS THE BEAR'S FAULT?" It appears that this was not the situation again these fact were not reported

Secondly how do they even know it was the right bear? Shooting it from an aircraft seems pretty cold blooded.

Anyhow, good job Alberta Wardens, keep up the good work, way to go, keep shooting breeding sow's for no good reason. Maybe your the reason for low Grizz counts in the Prov...Well guess the real reason is humanity and urban sprawl.
 
Last edited:
Camp Cook said:
I would have shot it and it's cubs...

Killed a human = kill it so it can't do it again...
Click to expand...

Is your comment so backwood because your from B.C ? I hope not, but it's RETARDED thinking like yours that makes this a fun world to live in...

A sow will defend it's young, it happens to be a natural instinct, not an un-natural thing I would think. There is a difference I accept if it is a bear actively hunting humans, but a chance encounter does not warrent the death penality.
 
Guys, before you start calling people stupid, here's the latest:

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/2008/10/13/7066656-sun.html

There's the fury and the hate mail and then there are the facts.

That one is a bucket of cold water for the other is frustratingly clear to Duncan MacDonnell.

He's the man charged with explaining why three bear cubs must fend for themselves as orphans, because their mother -- a grizzly that killed a Didsbury hunter -- was destroyed.

MacDonnell, spokesman for Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, has an e-mail inbox brimming with vitriol, and he's heard the interviews with environmentalists, blasting the decision to shoot the "innocent" bear.

"I'm getting hate mail -- people have seen my name quoted in the articles and it isn't hard to figure out a government e-mail address," said MacDonnell.




"It's pretty bad stuff -- people assume that the victim, just because he was a hunter, is fair game, but what they don't know is, he was a bow hunter and he wasn't hunting for bear.

"Forget that he was a hunter for a moment, and consider that it might have been someone else, maybe a hiker."

There might be some merit to the outrage if Robert Wagner of Didsbury had done what most critics assume he did, that is stumble across the mother and her three cubs while hunting in the wilderness near Sundre.

Bears are known to defend their young and to come between a mother bear and her cubs is a lethal mistake.

Had the grizzly killed Wagner out of defensive instinct, it would hardly seem sporting for Alberta Fish and Wildlife officers to track the bear and destroy it, leaving her cubs to an uncertain future.

But this wasn't a defensive attack.

MacDonnell won't divulge what he says are disturbing details of the mauling, but he says Fish and Wildlife experts have certain proof that the grizzly hunted Wagner, 48, with the intent of killing him.

"We are sure," said MacDonnell.

"I will not go into the details, out of respect for the family, but we are 100% certain this was a predatory attack and we were certain we had the right bear,.

"Fish and Wildlife would not have killed that bear if they were not 100% certain," he said.

Those same officers have now sent the three cubs to a remote area, where it's hoped there are enough pre-winter resources available for them to survive without their mother.

There was no choice but to send the yearling cubs into exile alone.

If the evidence that the grizzly was stalking human prey seems too vague, consider that bears are currently in pre-hibernation mode and fixated on finding food.

This was a mother with three hungry cubs.

There is a big difference between a defensive mauling and killing for food: An autopsy, as conducted on the victim, would easily rule one or the other out.

And so, a killer bear was, in turn, killed by wildlife officers, to keep the animal from seeking out a second human victim.

"The rule of thumb is that a predatory attack on a human is not normal bear behaviour, and if you let that bear go, next week it could maul a child," said MacDonnell.

Wagner, who worked as an assistant butcher at a Didsbury grocery store, wasn't just a hunter. He was married, the father of a teenage son.

He was also known for giving stickers to children at the grocery store and for volunteering to play Santa each Christmas at the local nursing home.

It's a sad case and the cold facts should quench the anger of most critics.

Only the most idealistic of animal lovers would argue a blood-thirsty grizzly should be allowed to roam free, no matter how critically endangered the species is.

Fight for the animals that remain, certainly -- demand that Alberta's grizzlies be protected from hunters.

You might even question whether the encroachment of humans into bear habitat is a catalyst for confrontation, or whether dwindling territory is forcing bears to seek food from unusual sources.

Valid questions, all.

But one question that isn't valid anymore is why the mother grizzly had to be shot.

As tragic as it is, Alberta can't have killer bears wandering the wilderness.
 
K98ACTION said:
Secondly how do they even know it was the right bear? Shooting it from an aircraft seems pretty cold blooded.
Click to expand...

K98ACTION said:
Is your comment so backwood because your from B.C ? I hope not, but it's RETARDED thinking like yours that makes this a fun world to live in...
Click to expand...


I did agree with some of the things you said, specifically how were they sure it was the bear that did the killing. However to comment as you did toward campcook is as rediculous as thinking its so cold blooded to have shot the bear from an air craft. What kind of terrain was the bear in? Maybe finding an animal and dispatching it from an air craft was faster than doing it on foot, or horse back, thus in their view, possibly preventing more killing.
 
bronco_mudder said:
I did agree with some of the things you said, specifically how were they sure it was the bear that did the killing. However to comment as you did toward campcook is as rediculous as thinking its so cold blooded to have shot the bear from an air craft. What kind of terrain was the bear in? Maybe finding an animal and dispatching it from an air craft was faster than doing it on foot, or horse back, thus in their view, possibly preventing more killing.
Click to expand...

Camp cook deserved to be called a RETARD for saying he'd kill the SOW and the three CUBS, how can you defend that comment.

As for the helicopter why did they need that? Bear was probably in back country right...? So it's heading away maybe into thick woods, leave it be, as for the comment it stalked Mr Wagner, well was it confirmed that it was doing it out of a love for human flesh, maybe the sow was old, or hurt, or sick in some way so that it had to resort to hunting humans. Did Wild life consider that and if so did they have reason to believe that was the case. If so then to destroy it may have been the only option. But if it was a healthy bear the fact that it killed a human which it may or may not have stalked is still a natural thing to do, in that the bear was preparing for Winter.

Maybe you all should read some books about man eaters and see what the old hunters had to say about what makes a man eater a man eater.

If we kill every bear for killing a human that is in their territory then they will all be gone.

so f**k it I guess.
 
K98ACTION said:
Camp cook deserved to be called a RETARD for saying he'd kill the SOW and the three CUBS, how can you defend that comment.

As for the helicopter why did they need that? Bear was probably in back country right...? So it's heading away maybe into thick woods, leave it be, as for the comment it stalked Mr Wagner, well was it confirmed that it was doing it out of a love for human flesh, maybe the sow was old, or hurt, or sick in some way so that it had to resort to hunting humans. Did Wild life consider that and if so did they have reason to believe that was the case. If so then to destroy it may have been the only option. But if it was a healthy bear the fact that it killed a human which it may or may not have stalked is still a natural thing to do, in that the bear was preparing for Winter.

Maybe you all should read some books about man eaters and see what the old hunters had to say about what makes a man eater a man eater.

If we kill every bear for killing a human that is in their territory then they will all be gone.

so f**k it I guess.
Click to expand...

I didn't say I agreed with it, and I didn't agree with how you responded to it either.

I'm not going to argue wether it was right or wrong to shoot the bear. All I have is the info to go by provided by the wildlife officers. One side to a situation, with out a possibility of seeing any other view. Although I will say this, they are put into the position and given the authority to make decisions, and there's really nothing we can do to change the out come of them. I read in other threads here of complaints that wildlife officers are not doing anything about poachers, illegal activities, and now complaints about killing a bear that so happened to kill a HUMAN. Sounds to me like a lot of people feel we'd be all better off with out them because they sure like to complain. How about this instead, maybe these people should step up, go to school, get a job as a wildlife officer and show all the current wildlife officers out there who try to do their jobs everyday how they can do it so much better.
 
And so, a killer bear was, in turn, killed by wildlife officers, to keep the animal from seeking out a second human victim.
Click to expand...

Good enough for me.

K98, how about if that bear had killed a second person? Or a third? When does it become appropriate to use a helicopter? When does it become OK to destroy a bear that hunts people? Yes, maybe the bear may have never killed anyone ever again, or even been seen for that matter, but would you want to take that chance? Would you make yourself personally responsible for what that bear might or might not do in the future?

The wildlife guys did what they had to do.
 
I'm not one who says every bear needs to be killed but it looks like this Sow hunted down, killed and fed a human to her cubs. My family and I spent Thanksgiving a couple of k from where the attack happened and the locals were very nervous. Why the cubs were allowed to live after eating a man is beyond me?
 
Once a bear gets a taste of human flesh, and how easy it is to obtain......well K98, you figure it out. And that particular gizz was still in a very populated area.
As for the helicopter, a lot less man hours to find her, and maybe averted another disaster. As for sick, injured, etc., the fact is, that bear STALKED, KILLED, and ATE a HUMAN BEING....a father, a husband, and a friend.
That grizzly bear signed her death warrant the second she went after that man.
As for the cubs, I would bet that if they come across another human, they will not hesitate to do as mommy taught them-humans are easy prey. I may be wrong in my thinking, but the world would not miss those three cubs.....
especially if it saves just one life.

my 0.02 cents
 
I agree with destroying the sow and the cubs. The helicopter is just a tool, like a rifle, don't get bent out of shape over it.

Measures such as these are undertaken to reduce future human risk from these problem animals. If a bear associates humans with food it has to be destroyed. Stop watching Disney movies and get out into the bush a bit more.
 
i see no problen shooting the bear from the air. its not a fair chase hunt. the object was to put down a specific bear not hunt.
 
geologist said:
I agree with destroying the sow and the cubs. The helicopter is just a tool, like a rifle, don't get bent out of shape over it.

Measures such as these are undertaken to reduce future human risk from these problem animals. If a bear associates humans with food it has to be destroyed. Stop watching Disney movies and get out into the bush a bit more.
Click to expand...
X2. If you have to kill a sow for any reason depending on their age the humane thing is to put the cubs down too. It sounds cruel but it's better than letting them starve to death, be taken by another bear or become a nuisance animal with a potential to attack a human. Life is often a little tougher than it is on TV.
 
Hopefully the cubs make it through the winter ok. Maybe it wouldn't have been such a bad idea to dispatch them as well. Depending on thier size and health it might have been less painfull on them than starving to death.

I can't help but wonder how hard it is shooting from a whirly bird though.
Must be bumpy!
 
i live on a ranch out near sundre and a few years ago the guy on the property next to ours shot two bears and then chased and killed a third bear that was hiding up in a tree.. the reason... they were curious for all the honey he had. (he was a honey farmer)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom