Bear attack in campground at Yellowstone

[SMSP]

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/montana-bear-attack-victim-deb-freele-speaks/story?id=11277179

[SMSP]

Another reminder of the inherent dangers of camping in bear country.
Anybody been to this campground (Soda Butte Campground in Yellowstone)?

My condolences to the family of the deceased and a speedy recovery for the injured.

They indicated that improper food storage was not an issue.
It would interesting to hear from other eye witnesses, if any.

SMSP

[Fiddleback]

The subject Soda Butte campground is not in Yellowstone National Park. It is outside the Park's boundaries and is a Gallatin National Forest campground.

FB

[TrailSquirrel]

The subject Soda Butte campground is not in Yellowstone National Park. It is outside the Park's boundaries and is a Gallatin National Forest campground.

FB

About 2 outside the boundary

[bulldog49]

I see thay caught the prepetrator, it was a sow with 3 cubs that returned to the campground this morning. She will be put down and the cubs kept in capitivity.

It was reported that all food in the campground was properly stored in the campground's bear proof food lockers. Nothing the campers did wrong, just an agressive bear.

[hellomolly]

Nothing the campers did wrong, just an agressive bear.


Aren't bears just bears? As in... sometimes aggressive, sometimes not? Mother bears with cubs are particularly protective. And the campers were in bear country. Don't bear encounters come with the territory? As in, they took that risk by camping there?

I just don't see why this bear is being put down.

[TIDE-HSV]

Aren't bears just bears? As in... sometimes aggressive, sometimes not? Mother bears with cubs are particularly protective. And the campers were in bear country. Don't bear encounters come with the territory? As in, they took that risk by camping there?

I just don't see why this bear is being put down.

Perhaps because she also killed a man in the attack?

[hellomolly]

Perhaps because she also killed a man in the attack?

So if she attacked but the person was just mauled and survived, she should be allowed to live? Do you think the bear has the wherewithall to think to itself, "hmm, I better stop mauling this person before I kill them... just want to give them a little swat to remind them not to hang out on my turf?"

Bears kill things... they're carnivores and predators, and the man camped there was in bear territory. 2+2=4, you know? It's not rabid or abnormal behavior for a bear to attack and/or kill something in its territory. It's actually pretty common, whether that "something" is another bear, some other creature or a human.

[bulldog49]

Aren't bears just bears? As in... sometimes aggressive, sometimes not? Mother bears with cubs are particularly protective. And the campers were in bear country. Don't bear encounters come with the territory? As in, they took that risk by camping there?

I just don't see why this bear is being put down.

It killed a man who was sleeping in his tent with no food to attract the bear. It mauled two other people, also asleep in their tent with no food. These people were in no way threatening to the bear, it attacked at 4 am, it was not a situation of a mother protecting her cubs. This bear sought out it's victims.

So, yeah, it needs to be put down.

[hellomolly]

It killed a man who was sleeping in his tent with no food to attract the bear. It mauled two other people, also asleep in their tent with no food. These people were in no way threatening to the bear, it attacked at 4 am, it was not a situation of a mother protecting her cubs. This bear sought out it's victims.

So, yeah, it needs to be put down.

I disagree. How do you know the bear did not feel threatened by the humans? How do you know she sought them out (which I think is complete bull, btw). They were in the space where she lives and she probably did not know who or what they were. This unknown entity most likely appeared threatening to her and, as a mother, she was in ultra-protective mode. Her behavior does not seem unusual to me at all. She was/is a protective mother bear doing what her instincts told her was the best course of action when encountering an unknown threat. What she didn't do was think to herself, "Huh, what jerks these campers are, hanging out on my territory. I think I'll show them a lesson." She was simply doing what cames naturally to her.

If you went swimming in shark-infested waters, would you be surprised if a shark tried to eat or attack you? Even if you weren't pouring chum in the water and shooting at the bear? I think not.

[hellomolly]

I disagree. How do you know the bear did not feel threatened by the humans? How do you know she sought them out (which I think is complete bull, btw). They were in the space where she lives and she probably did not know who or what they were. This unknown entity most likely appeared threatening to her and, as a mother, she was in ultra-protective mode. Her behavior does not seem unusual to me at all. She was/is a protective mother bear doing what her instincts told her was the best course of action when encountering an unknown threat. What she didn't do was think to herself, "Huh, what jerks these campers are, hanging out on my territory. I think I'll show them a lesson." She was simply doing what cames naturally to her.

If you went swimming in shark-infested waters, would you be surprised if a shark tried to eat or attack you? Even if you weren't pouring chum in the water and shooting at the bear? I think not.

That second to last sentence should end in "shark," not "bear." Sorry!

[bulldog49]

Bears kill things... they're carnivores and predators, and the man camped there was in bear territory. 2+2=4, you know? It's not rabid or abnormal behavior for a bear to attack and/or kill something in its territory. It's actually pretty common, whether that "something" is another bear, some other creature or a human.

Actually, this is very abnormal behavior for a sow with cubs. If a sow with cubs senses danger, i.e humans, other bears, wolves, she will rapidly leave the area rather than risk an encounter. She will only attack if she believes her cubs are in imminent danger. This is very bizarre behavior, more typical of a young male griz.

[mtnkngxt]

That second to last sentence should end in "shark," not "bear." Sorry!

So yeah your line of thinking does not compute. A bear in the middle of the night killed a man, and mauled two others. The bear regardless of why it did it, has now killed a man and tasted human blood. Best thing for everyone is for the offender to be put down.

[full conditions]

So yeah your line of thinking does not compute. A bear in the middle of the night killed a man, and mauled two others. The bear regardless of why it did it, has now killed a man and tasted human blood. Best thing for everyone is for the offender to be put down.
Wait, wait, wait... have you ever tried human blood? It's terrible. Way over rated.

[bulldog49]

I disagree. How do you know the bear did not feel threatened by the humans? How do you know she sought them out (which I think is complete bull, btw).

She went from tent to tent, ripping into them and attacking the sleeping occupants inside. That's how I know she sought them out.

[hellomolly]

Actually, this is very abnormal behavior for a sow with cubs. If a sow with cubs senses danger, i.e humans, other bears, wolves, she will rapidly leave the area rather than risk an encounter. She will only attack if she believes her cubs are in imminent danger. This is very bizarre behavior, more typical of a young male griz.


Ok... I've read/heard otherwise, but assuming you're correct, perhaps she believed her cubs were in imminent danger.


She went from tent to tent, ripping into them and attacking the sleeping occupants inside. That's how I know she sought them out.


How do you know she did not come across the sleeping campers unexpectedly and, upon encountering them, felt threatened and feared for her cubs? Oh wait, you don't.


Best thing for everyone is for the offender to be put down. Everyone... who's that, camper who is already dead? What about the cubs, which will now be raised in captivity without their natural mother? What about the bear, whose line of "thinking" (I hestitate to use that word but for lack of a better term) led it to believe it was threatened and attack, who is now being killed for, as far as we know, just doing what came naturally to it?

[bulldog49]

Ok... I've read/heard otherwise, but assuming you're correct, perhaps she believed her cubs were in imminent danger.



How do you know she did not come across the sleeping campers unexpectedly and, upon encountering them, felt threatened and feared for her cubs? Oh wait, you don't.





Everyone... who's that, camper who is already dead? What about the cubs, which will now be raised in captivity without their natural mother? What about the bear, whose line of "thinking" (I hestitate to use that word but for lack of a better term) led it to believe it was threatened and attack, who is now being killed for, as far as we know, just doing what came naturally to it?



Your responses show you know nothing about "normal" bear behavior. I've explained why a normal sow with cubs would not react that way. No point in continuing this.

[hellomolly]

Your responses show you know nothing about "normal" bear behavior. I've explained why a normal sow with cubs would not react that way. No point in continuing this.

Well, I've read and heard otherwise, so therefore, my own knowledge leads me to disagree with you. And if you think there's no point, stop posting.

[Alligator]

I know it's real difficult considering the positions taken, but try not to be disagreeable.

[TIDE-HSV]

So if she attacked but the person was just mauled and survived, she should be allowed to live? Do you think the bear has the wherewithall to think to itself, "hmm, I better stop mauling this person before I kill them... just want to give them a little swat to remind them not to hang out on my turf?"

Bears kill things... they're carnivores and predators, and the man camped there was in bear territory. 2+2=4, you know? It's not rabid or abnormal behavior for a bear to attack and/or kill something in its territory. It's actually pretty common, whether that "something" is another bear, some other creature or a human.

Can't argue with that. Don't intend even to try...

[Mrs Baggins]

And maybe she was just a mean nasty old b***h. Several years ago I remember reading about a couple in Alaska. They had done everything exactly right - - cooked a mile(may have been even further) from their campsite, buried/hid everything, including the clothes they had warn while cooking/eating, another mile away in another direction, got in their tents to sleep and a grizzly came during the night and killed them both. Never went near their food or their cache site. Simply ripped them apart. The husband was found with his hand on the rifle he was apparently about to grab but too late. The rangers referred to the bear as a "rogue grizzly" who probably would have gone on ripping people out of their tents just for the hell of it.

When you so sympathize with the animal I have to wonder if it was you or a loved one of yours would you stare teary-eyed into the camera and say how it was all your fault, the poor bear should be left alone, in fact you'll throw another loved one to it just to show how much you care for it and how you understand that it's really humans that are just the scum of the earth and you'll never ever camp or walk anywhere that is their home ever again because humans who do that just deserve what they get.........

[kayak karl]

Aren't bears just bears? As in... sometimes aggressive, sometimes not? Mother bears with cubs are particularly protective. And the campers were in bear country. Don't bear encounters come with the territory? As in, they took that risk by camping there?

I just don't see why this bear is being put down.

IT KILLED SOMEBODY! and it may again.

[As in, they took that risk by camping there?] using that argument, stay out of Central Park :)

[KnittingMelissa]

Bears avoid humans because they know humans are higher up on the food chain. Had this been a middle of the day occurrence, I would have suspected that the humans who were attacked accidentally antagonized the sow, or came between her and her cubs.

But this was not the case. All humans were asleep in their tents in a well established campground that, unless a bear was looking for food scraps, was a giant area of stay away for most bears. Bears can smell humans, and a campground is going to smell like human.

The sow going into tents and then mauling humans on purpose in the middle of the night is the sign of a mankiller. Maybe something is wrong with her mentally, maybe she has rabies. But this behavior is very abnormal. If it had happened once, maybe, just maybe, the bear freaked out at the sight of a tent (we're assuming this is one of the dumbest bears ever bred at this point), and attacked instead of smelling human and avoiding. But for her to specifically stay in the area and attack two more times shows intent. She's a danger, and she may be teaching her cubs to do the same at this point.

Yes, it's sad that she needs to be put down, but it's not just that she's a nuisance, she seems to be killing humans on purpose now. We put down human serial killers for the exact same behavior.

[TIDE-HSV]

Bears avoid humans because they know humans are higher up on the food chain. Had this been a middle of the day occurrence, I would have suspected that the humans who were attacked accidentally antagonized the sow, or came between her and her cubs.

But this was not the case. All humans were asleep in their tents in a well established campground that, unless a bear was looking for food scraps, was a giant area of stay away for most bears. Bears can smell humans, and a campground is going to smell like human.

The sow going into tents and then mauling humans on purpose in the middle of the night is the sign of a mankiller. Maybe something is wrong with her mentally, maybe she has rabies. But this behavior is very abnormal. If it had happened once, maybe, just maybe, the bear freaked out at the sight of a tent (we're assuming this is one of the dumbest bears ever bred at this point), and attacked instead of smelling human and avoiding. But for her to specifically stay in the area and attack two more times shows intent. She's a danger, and she may be teaching her cubs to do the same at this point.

Yes, it's sad that she needs to be put down, but it's not just that she's a nuisance, she seems to be killing humans on purpose now. We put down human serial killers for the exact same behavior.

It's interesting that a number of killings by bears have been found to be killings by serial killer bears, particularly in Glacier, before practices were reformed there. The argument that the bear was a predator is infantile. Were that so, the bear would have dragged off one human and fed off the body and had her cubs do the same. She didn't do that. In fact, the one survivor has stated that she stayed alive by playing dead. IOW, the bear was on a mission to kill humans. We don't know why and we could never discover the answer to that question. One thing's for sure and that's that she qualified as a serial killer. Had she been left alive in that area, then the entire area would have had to have been vacated by humans. I try to be open-minded, but not to the point my brains fall out on the ground...

[bronconite]

Aren't bears just bears? As in... sometimes aggressive, sometimes not?
yes


Mother bears with cubs are particularly protective. And the campers were in bear country.
correct


Don't bear encounters come with the territory?
Yes, but usually not deadly


As in, they took that risk by camping there?
Sure they did, we all take calculated risks every day.


I just don't see why this bear is being put down.
So you find it acceptable for the Bear to take another's life because it is a percieved risk to it and it's offspring. But it's not acceptable, for humans as a species to use our superior intelligence to proactively save members of our own species by taking the bear's life. Can you explain why you think natural law should allow it one way and not the other?


Well, I've read and heard otherwise
Could you site a source, or sources that would suggest this was normal behavior?

[TIDE-HSV]

Could you site a source, or sources that would suggest this was normal behavior?

Don't hold your breath waiting for that citation...

[SMSP]

The subject Soda Butte campground is not in Yellowstone National Park. It is outside the Park's boundaries and is a Gallatin National Forest campground.

FB

I am not familair with the area. How far outisde the park is this campground?

SMSP

[Different Socks]

For the sake of the argument to whether or not the bear should be put down: Why hasn't anyone of the responses mentioned that now that the bear has had a taste of human flesh, found it to be edible and therefore will kill a human again just because it considers it meat?

I don't like to see an animal put down, but this bear has now tasted humans as another form of meat for itself and 3 cubs. With that many mouths to feed, a sow will eat everything it can to feed her family. Do you really think she would not kill again now that she thinks humans are a good source of food?

[Different Socks]

BTW, Glacier Nat'l Park has had 4 separate incidents lately that involved bears and the use of bear deterrent.

[hellomolly]

And maybe she was just a mean nasty old b***h. Several years ago I remember reading about a couple in Alaska. They had done everything exactly right - - cooked a mile(may have been even further) from their campsite, buried/hid everything, including the clothes they had warn while cooking/eating, another mile away in another direction, got in their tents to sleep and a grizzly came during the night and killed them both. Never went near their food or their cache site. Simply ripped them apart. The husband was found with his hand on the rifle he was apparently about to grab but too late. The rangers referred to the bear as a "rogue grizzly" who probably would have gone on ripping people out of their tents just for the hell of it.

When you so sympathize with the animal I have to wonder if it was you or a loved one of yours would you stare teary-eyed into the camera and say how it was all your fault, the poor bear should be left alone, in fact you'll throw another loved one to it just to show how much you care for it and how you understand that it's really humans that are just the scum of the earth and you'll never ever camp or walk anywhere that is their home ever again because humans who do that just deserve what they get.........

Why does my sypathizing with an animal being put down equate to me not valuing human life? If you actually read my posts, you'd perhaps get my point, but you didn't and you don't. Oh well.

I never said those humans deserved anything. I'm just saying that they took a risk by camping in a place where numerous bear warning signs were posted. They knew the risk and they took it.

Saying a bear is a "mean old b****" just shows you are ignorant. You can't assign a wild animal the same responsibilities and expectations of behavior as a human being. A bear is not a human. It's highly, highly unlikely a mother with cubs would take on an unknown threat just for "fun." What is far more likely is a mother with cubs percieved a threat to herself and her cubs and acted as a bear might. It might also run away, but to say that a bear attacking simply because it APPEARS to be unprovoked is unusual is just wrong.


So you find it acceptable for the Bear to take another's life because it is a percieved risk to it and it's offspring. But it's not acceptable, for humans as a species to use our superior intelligence to proactively save members of our own species by taking the bear's life. Can you explain why you think natural law should allow it one way and not the other?

I never said I find it acceptable. Where did I post that? I just said I was not surprised. A mother bear with cubs perceived a threat and acted. Your acting as though this bear was a human with the same rational thoughts as a human. It wasn't and it doesn't have that ability. To expect it to act as a human would or wouldn't is stupid. It's just a bear acting like a bear. It didn't think anything to itself, it didn't plan it out and it didn't do it for fun. It was just being a bear.

Killing that bear will not bring the dead man back and no one can know if that bear would attack and kill again, so it's inaccurate to say we are "proactively" saving members of our own species by killing it.

As for the sources you asked for...

From Fascinating Mammals: Conservation and Ecology in the Mid-eastern States, by professor of wildlife conservation Richard Yahner:

"Black bears are better tree climbers compared to grizzlies because they weigh two to three times less than grizzlies. Short, curved front claws of black bears facilitate holding on to tree trunks, whereas long front claws and powerful shoulder and back muscles (hence, the hump on the back) of grizzly bears are specialized for digging up roots, small mammals and other food items. As a result, grizzlies can't climb trees once they reach sub-adult size. Therefore, a female black bear with young responds to danger, such as an attack by dogs, wolves or a grizzly bear, by climbing a tree. On the other hand, a female grizzly with young "stands her ground" and wards off attackers."

"Greater aggressiveness in grizzly bears also may be related to reproductive potential. A female black bear might raise 12 to 13 young in her lifetime, while a female grizzly produces only six to eight young in a lifetime. Hence, black bear young are more "expendable" than grizzly bear young. Increased aggressiveness in a female grizzly bear probably better ensures survival of her young to reproductive age and thereby better protects the "investment" in each offspring."

[bronconite]

For the sake of the argument to whether or not the bear should be put down: Why hasn't anyone of the responses mentioned that now that the bear has had a taste of human flesh, found it to be edible and therefore will kill a human again just because it considers it meat?

I don't like to see an animal put down, but this bear has now tasted humans as another form of meat for itself and 3 cubs. With that many mouths to feed, a sow will eat everything it can to feed her family. Do you really think she would not kill again now that she thinks humans are a good source of food?

I don't buy the arguement that a bear becomes a man killer once it has tasted human flesh. I think most bears that kill have either lost their natural fear of humans or thru some fluke, never had it.

This particular bear didn't feed on humans, it attacked and moved on. She didn't treat her victims as a food source, she treated them more like a threat.

Either way, she's shown a willingness to attack humans, and unchecked, will probably do it again.

[bulldog49]

3rd victim identified in Montana grizzly mauling
APNews

Authorities have identified the third victim of a bear attack in a campground near Yellowstone National Park as a 21-year-old man from Colorado.

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks officials say Ronald Singer, of Alamosa, Colo., was bitten in the attacks early Wednesday and treated a hospital in Cody, Wyo.

Hospital officials said Thursday that Singer was treated and released.

Wildlife officials have captured a grizzly bear and two cubs they believe dragged 48-year-old Kevin Kammer of Grand Rapids from his tent and killed him. Another camper, Deb Freele of London, Ontario, was scheduled for surgery Friday for bite wounds on her arm.

Officials were searching for a third cub and awaiting the results of DNA tests to confirm the bears were responsible for the attack.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

COOKE CITY, Mont. (AP) _ Wildlife officials on Thursday were testing the DNA of a captured grizzly bear to confirm if it was the animal that killed a Michigan man and injured two other campers in a rampage near Yellowstone National Park.

The sow, estimated to weigh 300 to 400 pounds, was lured into a trap fashioned from culvert pipe partially covered by pieces of the dead man's tent. She was left in place overnight Wednesday to attract her young, and by Thursday morning two of her year-old offspring were inside adjacent traps.

The third could be heard nearby through much of the day, calling out to its mother and eliciting heavy groans from the sow, which periodically rattled its steel cage. Wildlife officials were setting traps and exploring other ways of capturing the third cub, which they said could not be allowed to stay in the wild.

Montana wildlife officials identified the man killed in the early Wednesday mauling as Kevin Kammer, 48, of Grand Rapids, Mich. The bear pulled Kammer out his tent at the Soda Butte Campground and dragged him 25 feet to where his body was found, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks spokesman Ron Aasheim said.

Messages left Thursday for Kammer's mother-in-law and brother-in-law in Michigan were not immediately returned.

The other victims, Deb Freele of London, Ontario, and an unidentified male, were hospitalized in Cody, Wyo. The male was treated and released, and Freele was scheduled to have surgery Friday for bite wounds and a broken bone in her arm, said West Park Hospital spokesman Joel Hunt.

News of the maulings set residents and tourists on edge in Cooke City, a Yellowstone gateway community tucked into the picturesque Absaroka Mountains. Many were carrying bear spray, a pepper-based deterrent more commonly seen in Yellowstone's backcountry than on the city's streets.

Pennsylvania tourist Sheila McBride said she bought a can of the spray Thursday morning after hearing news of the attacks. She and her husband had no plans to hike or camp but were driving through the park in a convertible and wanted to be prepared in case they were delayed in a remote area by any road construction.

"We've got it in the back where we can grab it real easy," McBride said, pointing to her BMW. "If we're stuck in the convertible and a bear is coming over the mountain, we want to be ready."

Fish, Wildlife and Parks Warden Capt. Sam Sheppard said he was confident the killer bear was the one they had captured because it came back to the site of the rampage, which started around 2 a.m. Wednesday.

Sheppard said it was a highly unusual predatory attack, with campers in three different tents mauled as they slept.

"She basically targeted the three people and went after them," Sheppard said. "It wasn't like an archery hunter who gets between a sow and her cubs and she responds to protect them."

Officials have said the sow will be killed if DNA evidence confirms it was the same bear that attacked the victims. Aasheim said the test results were expected by Friday.

"Everything points to it being the offending bear, but we are not going to do anything until we have DNA samples," Aasheim said.

State and federal wildlife officials will determine the fate of the cubs, which are feared to have learned predatory behavior from their mother.

Freele appeared on network morning shows Thursday to recount waking up just before she was bitten on her arm and leg.

"I screamed, he bit harder, I screamed harder, he continued to bite," she said, adding that she could hear her bones breaking.

"I told myself, play dead," she said in the interview from the hospital. "I went totally limp. As soon as I went limp, I could feel his jaws get loose and then he let me go."

Freele said the bear was silent.

"This, to me, was just an absolutely freaky thing," she said. "I have to believe that the bear was not normal. It was very quiet, it never made any noise. I felt like it was hunting me."

The bear attack was the most brazen in the Yellowstone area since the 1980s, wildlife officials said.

In 2008 at the same campground, a grizzly bear bit and injured a man sleeping in a tent. A young adult female grizzly was captured in a trap four days later and taken to a bear research center in Washington state.

"The suspicion among a lot of the residents is that the bear they caught (in 2008) was not the right one," said Gary Vincelette, who has a cabin in nearby Silver Gate.

Sheppard, the warden captain, said there was no truth to that.

The grizzly involved in the latest attack showed no outward signs of sickness or starvation that might have explained its unusual behavior, said Fish Wildlife and Parks spokeswoman Andrea Jones.

About 600 grizzly bears and hundreds of less-aggressive black bears live in the Yellowstone area.

The region is pasted with hundreds of signs warning visitors to keep food out of the bruins' reach. Experts say bears who eat human food quickly become habituated to people, increasing the danger of an attack.

Yet in the case of the Wednesday's attack, all the victims had put their food into metal food canisters installed at campsite, Sheppard said.

"They were doing things right," he said. "It was random. I have no idea why this bear picked these three tents out of all the tents there."

The 10-acre Soda Butte Campground in Gallatin National Forest has 27 campsites.

Two other campgrounds were also closed while the attacking bear or bears remained at large.

___

Associated Press writers Amy Beth Hanson and Matt Volz in Helena, Ben Neary in Cheyenne, Wyo., and Mike Householder in Detroit contributed to this report.

[KnittingMelissa]

Killing that bear will not bring the dead man back and no one can know if that bear would attack and kill again, so it's inaccurate to say we are "proactively" saving members of our own species by killing it.

This bear has a history of returning to the same area and mauling and killing people. Given that this has happened THREE separate times on three separate dates indicates that yes, it is most likely that she will return and attack again. In fact, given her history of violence, had she not been captured it would have been a certainty.

And, given that she is clearly not attacking for food (none of the people/bodies has been dragged away or fed upon) indicates that she is killing for reasons other than threat/hunger. If it was a single incident, and she was an enormously stupid bear, she could have been 'alarmed' by a tent in an area long used by humans.

But she kept returning to the same area, time and time again. This would indicate she was not 'threatened and fearing for the safety of her cubs'. If so, she would have taken steps to avoid that area. Grizzly bears, when alerted to humans, will avoid them wherever possible. This campground has been there longer than she has been alive, and thus would not be traditional hunting/feeding grounds for her. She had no reason to want to be in that area, nor any reason to defend that area.

This bear repeatedly returned to a human populated area and specifically killed humans. Not because she was threatened, and not because she was hungry. She had become a mankiller, specifically. And, worse yet, she could have been teaching her three cubs to become equally as dangerous.

I would be interested in the results of the necropsy to see if she had any physical issues that might have also driven her to such behavior, such as a virus or parasitic organism in her brain. She clearly wasn't sane, but there may have been reasons behind it.

[bulldog49]

I don't buy the arguement that a bear becomes a man killer once it has tasted human flesh. I think most bears that kill have either lost their natural fear of humans or thru some fluke, never had it.

This particular bear didn't feed on humans, it attacked and moved on. She didn't treat her victims as a food source, she treated them more like a threat.

Either way, she's shown a willingness to attack humans, and unchecked, will probably do it again.


Bears often come back and feed on their kill later. This Bear returned to the site of the kill. Of course the "kill" was no longer there. Not the habit of a normal sow with cubs to purposely bring her cubs into an area she knows is habitated by humans.

[hellomolly]

This bear has a history of returning to the same area and mauling and killing people. Given that this has happened THREE separate times on three separate dates indicates that yes, it is most likely that she will return and attack again. In fact, given her history of violence, had she not been captured it would have been a certainty.

What I read was that these attacks occurred at the same campground on the same night. Where did you read that she attacked three separate groups on three separate days?



And, given that she is clearly not attacking for food (none of the people/bodies has been dragged away or fed upon) indicates that she is killing for reasons other than threat/hunger. If it was a single incident, and she was an enormously stupid bear, she could have been 'alarmed' by a tent in an area long used by humans.

No, given the fact that she was clearly not attacking for food, it indicates she was killing for reasons other than JUST hunger. Since no one can really be in that bears brain, no one really knows why it attacked and it would be reasonable to believe that it attacked because of a perceived threat, real or imagined.




But she kept returning to the same area, time and time again. This would indicate she was not 'threatened and fearing for the safety of her cubs'. If so, she would have taken steps to avoid that area. Grizzly bears, when alerted to humans, will avoid them wherever possible. This campground has been there longer than she has been alive, and thus would not be traditional hunting/feeding grounds for her. She had no reason to want to be in that area, nor any reason to defend that area.

Actually, grizzlies, when perceiving a threat and no obvious manner of escaping that threat, are likely to attack because of believing it has no other option.


This bear repeatedly returned to a human populated area and specifically killed humans. Not because she was threatened, and not because she was hungry. She had become a mankiller, specifically. And, worse yet, she could have been teaching her three cubs to become equally as dangerous.


Again, perhaps I misread, but I believe this was ONE single instance. Not a repeat offender. One time.

[bulldog49]

What I read was that these attacks occurred at the same campground on the same night. Where did you read that she attacked three separate groups on three separate days?



No, given the fact that she was clearly not attacking for food, it indicates she was killing for reasons other than JUST hunger. Since no one can really be in that bears brain, no one really knows why it attacked and it would be reasonable to believe that it attacked because of a perceived threat, real or imagined.




Actually, grizzlies, when perceiving a threat and no obvious manner of escaping that threat, are likely to attack because of believing it has no other option.



Again, perhaps I misread, but I believe this was ONE single instance. Not a repeat offender. One time.

She was caught when she returned, with her cubs, later the same day. Had she thought the humans were simply a threat to her cubs she would have never returned. Don't be obtuse.

[hellomolly]

She was caught when she returned, with her cubs, later the same day. Had she thought the humans were simply a threat to her cubs she would have never returned. Don't be obtuse.

I'm not being obtuse - don't be insulting. She was caught when they attracted her with pieces of the dead man's tent, and it's reasonable to think she might return to that place and that specific smell if she thought there was food (ie the dead guy's body that she had left there herself). What I was addressing in Melissa's post was her apparently incorrect belief that this bear attacked three separate times on three separate days - not true, as far as I've read.

[bulldog49]

I'm not being obtuse

:banana:banana:banana:banana:banana:banana:banana

[hellomolly]

:banana:banana:banana:banana:banana:banana:banana

Ok ok, I get it - when proven wrong, you make moronic posts that are of no value. Thanks for the heads up!

[KnittingMelissa]

Actually, grizzlies, when perceiving a threat and no obvious manner of escaping that threat, are likely to attack because of believing it has no other option.


So what you're saying is that a bear, in the wilderness, who sees a stationary tent in the middle of the night is too stupid to figure out how to escape from said stationary tent? So, instead, she silently crept toward the tent, and then attacked once the person inside the tent noticed that a bear had joined her inside the tent?

That's not attacking because the bear had no way of escaping. That is specifically hunting and attacking. The bear did not need to go near the tent to escape the campgrounds, the bear did not need to rip through the tent and enter, and the bear did not need to attack the people inside the tent. None of these are the actions of an animal attempting to escape. These were the actions of an animal hunting.

From Reuters: He said the attacks appeared to be unprovoked, and that the presence of food, which often attracts bears and other wildlife into campgrounds, did not appear to be a factor. Such "random predatory" bear attacks on humans are rare, he said. ~Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Department spokesman Ron Aasheim http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66R5VK20100728 Source.



Again, perhaps I misread, but I believe this was ONE single instance. Not a repeat offender. One time.

She was caught returning to the campground. So yes, she was repeatedly in the area.

Although I had initially read it as three separate nights, this means that the bear had decided to hang around one night and just savage and kill people. That's not normal. There was nothing blocking or preventing her escape. Sleeping people in tents are not a threat. They should not be perceived as a threat to an animal in the wilderness. They are stationary objects that a sane bear will avoid because a sane bear will avoid humans.

[Lone Wolf]

i'll always sleep with my chow. y'all are funny

[bulldog49]

Ok ok, I get it - when proven wrong, you make moronic posts that are of no value. Thanks for the heads up!

I haven't been proven wrong, did you read the AP article I posted above? From that article:

Fish, Wildlife and Parks Warden Capt. Sam Sheppard said he was confident the killer bear was the one they had captured because it came back to the site of the rampage, which started around 2 a.m. Wednesday.


The bear returned to the scene, a normal sow would never bring her cubs back to an area she perceived as dangerous, as you claim. But bears will return to the scene of a kill to feed on it. Clear enough for you?

[bronconite]

I never said I find it acceptable. Where did I post that? I just said I was not surprised.
I infered your acceptance from this post, in which you seem indifferent to the fact that a life was lost and people injured.


Aren't bears just bears? As in... sometimes aggressive, sometimes not? Mother bears with cubs are particularly protective. And the campers were in bear country. Don't bear encounters come with the territory? As in, they took that risk by camping there?

I just don't see why this bear is being put down.




Your acting as though this bear was a human with the same rational thoughts as a human. I'm not sure where you get that. My opinion is that it doesn't really matter what drove her to it. She has shown the willingness to attack humans with NO provocation. And many, including the experts in charge of the Grizzly's well being, agree she must be destroyed.





Killing that bear will not bring the dead man back and no one can know if that bear would attack and kill again, so it's inaccurate to say we are "proactively" saving members of our own species by killing it.
OK, then we are probably "proactively" saving members of our own species by killing it.



Therefore, a female black bear with young responds to danger, such as an attack by dogs, wolves or a grizzly bear, by climbing a tree. On the other hand, a female grizzly with young "stands her ground" and wards off attackers."

Sorry, but that's a pretty poor arguement. "Stands her ground" and "wards off attackkers" is a far cry from [Actively roots out sleeping humans from their tents and kills them]

Seriously, do you have any better info to show this is normal behavior? I am open minded and would welcome info that is new to me. But this makes no sense. If it were "normal" behavior, their would be alot more dead and mauled people and alot more dead bears

[hellomolly]

So what you're saying is that a bear, in the wilderness, who sees a stationary tent in the middle of the night is too stupid to figure out how to escape from said stationary tent? So, instead, she silently crept toward the tent, and then attacked once the person inside the tent noticed that a bear had joined her inside the tent?

Sleeping people in tents are not a threat. They should not be perceived as a threat to an animal in the wilderness. They are stationary objects that a sane bear will avoid because a sane bear will avoid humans.

Sleeping people in tents aren't a threat to... you. Given you are 1. not a bear and 2. not this bear in particular, I would assume you don't assume to know what this bear perceived or felt.

A sane bear will USUALLY avoid humans. Given this is definitely not the only bear attack ever, your generalization is simply wrong.



She was caught returning to the campground. So yes, she was repeatedly in the area.


Well, you can try and pretend you said something different, but sorry, you are wrong - she did not repeatedly return to the same area and attack each time. If you'd like to pretend that her returning to the site where she thought food was, and after being lured there by trappers, is another instance of her returning to the campground unsolicited... okay, whatever, but you're still wrong, sorry. This was one single attack. That's just fact.

[hellomolly]

I haven't been proven wrong, did you read the AP article I posted above?

I wasn't referring to that, I was referring to your inability to respond to my post, which had been a response to Melissa. Don't be obtuse. ;)

[KnittingMelissa]

Sleeping people in tents aren't a threat to... you. Given you are 1. not a bear and 2. not this bear in particular, I would assume you don't assume to know what this bear perceived or felt.

A sane bear will USUALLY avoid humans. Given this is definitely not the only bear attack ever, your generalization is simply wrong.

So what you are saying is that bears are simply stupid? This was an established campground. If she were 'defending the area' for her cubs then she would already be familiar with the fact that people sleep in tents in the area. So either she was too stupid to remember this from one year to the next, or she knew that the people sleeping in the tents would not be a major threat to her when she attacked.

Given her actions of attacking three people that night, I would vote for the latter. I don't know how you can justify a tent, in the middle of an established campground, as a threat to a bear, but I can't.

Bears are not stupid!

No matter how much you insist otherwise, they are intelligent animals. They can tell the difference between a threat and a non threat, and take action. A bear silently sneaking into a tent and then attacking someone is not a bear responding to a threat, it is a bear hunting. She kept her cubs in the area to teach them this behavior. This bear is hunting humans for sport, for fun, and is a danger.

I am sorry that you are too dense to understand logic, but that is not my fault.

[hellomolly]

I infered your acceptance from this post, in which you seem indifferent to the fact that a life was lost and people injured.

Well, your inference was wrong. I was simply making an observation, not stating that I accepted or condoned or was happy about the incident. Of course I'm not. I don't see it as something to accept or not accept... it just happened, and I was making an observation about it.



Seriously, do you have any better info to show this is normal behavior? I am open minded and would welcome info that is new to me. But this makes no sense. If it were "normal" behavior, their would be alot more dead and mauled people and alot more dead bears

Alright, if I said this specific incident is normal, I revise that. I wouldn't say it's normal. I would say it's not surprising. You also did not address the other passage I quoted that said a female grizzly is much more likely to be aggressive in response to a percieved threat because of lower reproductive rates. While not proof, nothing is really "proof" in cases like this... we just have observations and studies and opinions, much fewer hard facts about what is normal or not.

[bulldog49]

I wasn't referring to that, I was referring to your inability to respond to my post, which had been a response to Melissa. Don't be obtuse. ;)

This is what I posted:

She was caught when she returned, with her cubs, later the same day. Had she thought the humans were simply a threat to her cubs she would have never returned. Don't be obtuse.

I have no idea how you proved I was wrong.

Again, read the article. Obtuse indeed.

[hellomolly]

So what you are saying is that bears are simply stupid? This was an established campground. If she were 'defending the area' for her cubs then she would already be familiar with the fact that people sleep in tents in the area.

Once again... you don't know what bears think and you don't know what this bear in particular thought. Do you know for a fact that this bear had visited this place before? How do you know it had never encountered this campground in the past? Oh wait... you don't.


A bear silently sneaking into a tent and then attacking someone is not a bear responding to a threat, it is a bear hunting. She kept her cubs in the area to teach them this behavior. This bear is hunting humans for sport, for fun, and is a danger.


If it's a bear hunting, then it's searching for food, which is reasonable - humans might be food for a bear if the bear wanted it to be an was hungry enough. I thought you said it wasn't hunting for food, though...? Hm... which is it?

A bear with cubs would be very, very unlikely to keep its cubs nearby while it took on an unknown threat for fun. A bear protecting its cubs would either run away or attack upon perceiving a threat - it wouldn't jeopardize its life and the life of it's cubs for "fun." Bears are not stupid! Remember? Just using the word "fun" shows you have no idea what you're talking about. Sorry you are too dense to understand that.

[bulldog49]

Once again... you don't know what bears think and you don't know what this bear in particular thought. Do you know for a fact that this bear had visited this place before? How do you know it had never encountered this campground in the past? Oh wait... you don't.



If it's a bear hunting, then it's searching for food, which is reasonable - humans might be food for a bear if the bear wanted it to be an was hungry enough. I thought you said it wasn't hunting for food, though...? Hm... which is it?

A bear with cubs would be very, very unlikely to keep its cubs nearby while it took on an unknown threat for fun. A bear protecting its cubs would either run away or attack upon perceiving a threat - it wouldn't jeopardize its life and the life of it's cubs for "fun." Bears are not stupid! Remember? Just using the word "fun" shows you have no idea what you're talking about. Sorry you are too dense to understand that.

Ok, now I get it! No one is really this stupid, he or she is a troll just playing with us.

[hellomolly]

This is what I posted:

She was caught when she returned, with her cubs, later the same day. Had she thought the humans were simply a threat to her cubs she would have never returned. Don't be obtuse.

I have no idea how you proved I was wrong.

Again, read the article. Obtuse indeed.


Wow. Think for a second. I was NOT responding to the article.

Here's how it went down:

Melissa said the bear attacked multiple times on several different days.

I said, actually, no it didn't, it attacked once and then returned to the place where it thought it had left food and also because it had been lured there, so actually there was one attack only. Not three. Just clearing up incorrect information.

You chimed in stating that she was caught when she returned, inferring that her return counts as some how another attack on a separate day.

I posted that it was reasonable to assume a bear might return to the place where it left food (the man's body).

Then you respond with bananas. :rolleyes:

Get it yet?

[Lone Wolf]

cyberhikers convention. bears are good eatin'

[hellomolly]

Ok, now I get it! No one is really this stupid, he or she is a troll just playing with us.


Why is it impossible for you to post in response to someone you disagree with without being rude, insulting or condescending? Grow up, dude.

[KnittingMelissa]

Once again... you don't know what bears think and you don't know what this bear in particular thought. Do you know for a fact that this bear had visited this place before? How do you know it had never encountered this campground in the past? Oh wait... you don't.



So you're saying that a non human relocated sow with three cubs is randomly just going to wake up one morning and go for a road trip? Bears have a established territories, and a sow with three cubs isn't going to roam like a twenty year old college student in Europe.



If it's a bear hunting, then it's searching for food, which is reasonable - humans might be food for a bear if the bear wanted it to be an was hungry enough. I thought you said it wasn't hunting for food, though...? Hm... which is it?


And yet the bear in question is well fed and not suffering from hunger or malnutrition, nor are the cubs. Unless you're saying that it's okay for a bear to look at humans as a food source in the middle of the year when food should be plentiful for them elsewhere in the area, in the wild.

Hunting does not mean only hunting for food. Animals are known to hunt for sport. They are called mankillers. This bear shows all indications of such behavior, and of teaching it to her cubs. If you are so familiar with the subject of animals hunting, then you should be familiar with mankillers.



A bear with cubs would be very, very unlikely to keep its cubs nearby while it took on an unknown threat for fun. A bear protecting its cubs would either run away or attack upon perceiving a threat - it wouldn't jeopardize its life and the life of it's cubs for "fun." Bears are not stupid! Remember? Just using the word "fun" shows you have no idea what you're talking about. Sorry you are too dense to understand that.

Unless the sow was teaching them. She was teaching them to hunt humans. She kept them close to a non threatening environment where she went and killed one man and mauled two other humans. She was showing them how to do so. She was hunting and teaching her cubs to hunt humans. She is a mankiller.

[Lone Wolf]

me thinks MOST posters on this thread haven't done much sleeping in bear areas never mind mice and coons. time to close this one :banana

[KnittingMelissa]

Ok, now I get it! No one is really this stupid, he or she is a troll just playing with us.

I'm going to have to ditto this. User hellomolly either has to be so unfamiliar with bears in the outdoors that she's getting information from /b/ and thinking it's correct, or she's being dense on purpose and just trolling the boards. Or just trolling this specific topic on purpose.

[bulldog49]

Wow. Think for a second. I was NOT responding to the article.

Here's how it went down:

Melissa said the bear attacked multiple times on several different days.

I said, actually, no it didn't, it attacked once and then returned to the place where it thought it had left food and also because it had been lured there, so actually there was one attack only. Not three. Just clearing up incorrect information.

You chimed in stating that she was caught when she returned, inferring that her return counts as some how another attack on a separate day.

I posted that it was reasonable to assume a bear might return to the place where it left food (the man's body).

Then you respond with bananas. :rolleyes:

Get it yet?

Wow! So now you agree this bear was predating on humans, which was my original assertion, but you believe that is normal bear behavior and the bear should be allowed to continue it's human predation ways. Again, WOW!

[hellomolly]

And yet the bear in question is well fed and not suffering from hunger or malnutrition, nor are the cubs. Unless you're saying that it's okay for a bear to look at humans as a food source in the middle of the year when food should be plentiful for them elsewhere in the area, in the wild.

Hunting does not mean only hunting for food. Animals are known to hunt for sport. They are called mankillers.


I read nothing about her being well fed, but even if she was, as a wild animal, it's probably always hungry and on the lookout for more food, and as a wild animal with three hungry mouths to feed, I would think that it would be on the lookout for food constantly.

I've read nothing about a bear hunting for "fun," especially not a bear with three cubs. If this bear was a "mankiller" and just attacked randomly for no reason, how did it survive to adulthood and to the point of having three offspring of its own?

[hellomolly]

Wow! So now you agree this bear was predating on humans, which was my original assertion, but you believe that is normal bear behavior and the bear should be allowed to continue it's human predation ways. Again, WOW!

:banana:banana:banana:banana:banana:banana:banana: banana:banana

:)

[bulldog49]

me thinks MOST posters on this thread haven't done much sleeping in bear areas never mind mice and coons. time to close this one :banana

You think wrong if you are referring to me. I've spent plenty of nights in Griz country, including north Alaska. It's not the same as walking the civilized AT.

And i do usually sleep with my food. But that is not the issue of this discussion as the subject bear was not looking for human food, but humans as food.

[Lone Wolf]

You think wrong if you are referring to me. I've spent plenty of nights in Griz country, including north Alaska. It's not the same as walking the civilized AT.

And i do usually sleep with my food. But that is not the issue of this discussion as the subject bear was not looking for human food, but humans as food.
not directed towards you. this thread is in the General AT forum. it belongs in Humor or "I don't hike hardly" forum. i agree, the AT is hardly bear-worrisome

[bulldog49]

I read nothing about her being well fed,?

That is your problem, you don't read very well, or not at all. Again from the AP article:

The grizzly involved in the latest attack showed no outward signs of sickness or starvation that might have explained its unusual behavior, said Fish Wildlife and Parks spokeswoman Andrea Jones.


The article states the bear weighs between 300 and 400lbs. Normal weight for a female Griz.

[Don H]

Molly, have you spent much time in grizzly country?

[hellomolly]

blah blah blah rude comment blah blah blah vague assumption blah blah blah insult blah blah blah convenient ignoring of other opinions


FYP! :sun

:banana:banana:banana:banana:banana:banana:banana: banana

[hellomolly]

Molly, have you spent much time in grizzly country?

nope. and unless you or anyone else on this thread has been attacked by a grizzly bear or had a close personal encounter with a griz, i don't see your point. :)

[Lone Wolf]

FYP! :sun

:banana:banana:banana:banana:banana:banana:banana: banana

you're too buzzed. let the argument go. lotsa bananas mean you're really frustrated and at a dead end. really. :cool:

[lilricky]

Hmm... perhaps the Discovery Channel should have a Bear Week along with Shark Week?

[hellomolly]

you're too buzzed. let the argument go. lotsa bananas mean you're really frustrated and at a dead end. really. :cool:

Buzzed? I wish. Not on a work night though. :(

Then I guess bulldog should have let the thread go about three pages ago, when he posted a nice long thread of bananas...?


:rolleyes:

[bronconite]

Well, your inference was wrong. I was simply making an observation
fair enough




You also did not address the other passage I quoted that said a female grizzly is much more likely to be aggressive in response to a percieved threat because of lower reproductive rates. While not proof, nothing is really "proof" in cases like this... we just have observations and studies and opinions, much fewer hard facts about what is normal or not.
We all know mother bears are dangerous. But seriously, you pull a few citations out of a book (From Fascinating Mammals: Conservation and Ecology in the Mid-eastern States, by professor of wildlife conservation Richard Yahner),which is about mammals from a geographic area that doesn't even include the Grizzly's range. The citations are used not to describe Grizzly behavior, but to compare it to that of a Black Bear, and you want further response? You've formed your opinions on Grizzly's by reading a book about Mammal conservation and Ecology of the Mid-eastern States. Quote me something from a book about Grizzly Bears

[bulldog49]

FYP! :sun

:banana:banana:banana:banana:banana:banana:banana: banana

I know Molly, it's a bitch when someone confuses you with the facts. :D

[wvgrinder]

you're too buzzed. let the argument go. lotsa bananas mean you're really frustrated and at a dead end. really. :cool:

I agree. I think "hello" has taken too much "molly". :rolleyes:

[hellomolly]

We all know mother bears are dangerous. But seriously, you pull a few citations out of a book (From Fascinating Mammals: Conservation and Ecology in the Mid-eastern States, by professor of wildlife conservation Richard Yahner),which is about mammals from a geographic area that doesn't even include the Grizzly's range. The citations are used not to describe Grizzly behavior, but to compare it to that of a Black Bear, and you want further response? You've formed your opinions on Grizzly's by reading a book about Mammal conservation and Ecology of the Mid-eastern States. Quote me something from a book about Grizzly Bears

If you don't want to accept or even read the passage and have completely ruled out its validity, so be it - that's you're perogative. For me, a professor of wildlife conservation saying that a mother grizzly is likely to be more aggressive and also to stand her ground upon perceiving a threat instead of running away is compelling information. But if you disagree, that's fine too.

[hellomolly]

blah blah blah ignorant comment blah blah blah

Jeeze, you are making lots of mistakes! FYP again. :)


Diggerlit, that would sort of be clever if it made any sense. Sorry though, no luck. :(

[Ender]

OK people... discuss the facts, stop insulting each other.

[No Belay]

Moly let's lighten things up :). What's your opinion on capitol punishment?


Just Kiddin :o

Savor Happy!

[KnittingMelissa]

I've read nothing about a bear hunting for "fun," especially not a bear with three cubs. If this bear was a "mankiller" and just attacked randomly for no reason, how did it survive to adulthood and to the point of having three offspring of its own?

As to the comment about her hunger situation, I already directly quoted that earlier in this thread. And it's in the article.

As to how she survived to adulthood, if you read the articles about this online, you will note that this is not the first time such a situation has occurred in that area. It is very likely that this is taught behavior that she learned.

In 2008 at the same campground, a grizzly bear bit and injured a man sleeping in a tent. A young adult female grizzly was captured in a trap four days later and taken to a bear research center in Washington state. Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h-zvKvHc7LVgGFN-WcG2niIDZNZwD9H91COG1

[Lone Wolf]

We all know mother bears are dangerous.

not true at all. many times while trail running around damascus i came upon mom and cub/cubs. mom ran away fast and cubs went up a tree. i waited a few minutes to see if mom would come back. never happened. the whole "mom will protect her cubs" is a fallacy

[hellomolly]

As to the comment about her hunger situation, I already directly quoted that earlier in this thread. And it's in the article.

And I responded by stating that even if she wasn't starving, it wouldn't be a huge stretch to think that a mother bear would be on the lookout for food almost all the time... which I still stand by.



As to how she survived to adulthood, if you read the articles about this online, you will note that this is not the first time such a situation has occurred in that area. It is very likely that this is taught behavior that she learned.

In 2008 at the same campground, a grizzly bear bit and injured a man sleeping in a tent. A young adult female grizzly was captured in a trap four days later and taken to a bear research center in Washington state. Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h-zvKvHc7LVgGFN-WcG2niIDZNZwD9H91COG1

So... are you saying she was this bear in question? Or was the cub of this bear in question? Absent of those two possibilities, how would she learn that behavior, since bears are generally solitary and don't spend a lot of time together, outside of mating and outside of moms with cubs?

I'm sorry, but I just can't justify each of your responses with the other. First she's hunting for food, then she's hunting for fun. She's a mankiller who kills for fun and has been at this campground before, but has never killed another person and has somehow survived to adulthood, despite being a crazy mankiller that kills anything that moves for fun. She must have been to this place before, but somehow avoided it for so long that she never attacked there before and in fact lived long enough to have babies without going on a killing rampage. None of that makes sense. Sorry but I do not buy your arguments.

[hellomolly]

not true at all. many times while trail running around damascus i came upon mom and cub/cubs. mom ran away fast and cubs went up a tree. i waited a few minutes to see if mom would come back. never happened. the whole "mom will protect her cubs" is a fallacy


No, the whole "black bear mom will protect her cubs" is a fallacy. Black bears are very likely to run away and I've read multiple instances of cubs being taken from mom bears without the mom attacking. Grizzlies, however, are much different - they are more likely to attack when perceiving a threat. And this thread pertains to a grizzly, not a black bear, which is what you saw in Damascus.

[bronconite]

not true at all. many times while trail running around damascus i came upon mom and cub/cubs. mom ran away fast and cubs went up a tree. i waited a few minutes to see if mom would come back. never happened. the whole "mom will protect her cubs" is a fallacy

I meant mother Grizzly Bears, refering to Molly's post. My bad

[Don H]

Just wondering if you had first hand experience with the cute little teddy bears. I hear they like to be scratched behind the ears ;)
I've spent several weeks in Gallatin N. F. backpacking in the back country, not camping in the established areas like the Soda Creek C.G.
I've had a close encounter with a griz, it's very disconcerting to suddenly realize that you're not at the top of the food chain!

[gregp]

This is why a large caliber handgun in grizz country is a good idea.

[hellomolly]

This is why a large caliber handgun in grizz country is a good idea.


Somehow I doubt the woman who was having her arm chewed off would have had the ability to grab a gun and shoot and, in such close proximity to other campers, she probably would have been more likely to kill another human than harm the bear.

And even if she was able to shoot the bear... in such close quarters, in the dark... she'd probably hit the bear somewhere non fatal and just piss it off more.

So actually, this is definitely NOT why it's a good idea to have a gun in grizzly country.

[KnittingMelissa]

So... are you saying she was this bear in question? Or was the cub of this bear in question? Absent of those two possibilities, how would she learn that behavior, since bears are generally solitary and don't spend a lot of time together, outside of mating and outside of moms with cubs?


Quite possibly. The female captured did not have a cub with her, but was more than capable of raising a cub. And there are even people who suspect that the wrong bear was captured two years ago.



I'm sorry, but I just can't justify each of your responses with the other. First she's hunting for food, then she's hunting for fun. She's a mankiller who kills for fun and has been at this campground before, but has never killed another person and has somehow survived to adulthood, despite being a crazy mankiller that kills anything that moves for fun. She must have been to this place before, but somehow avoided it for so long that she never attacked there before and in fact lived long enough to have babies without going on a killing rampage. None of that makes sense. Sorry but I do not buy your arguments.

I never said she was hunting for food, you did. I said she was hunting. Fun and sport are often the same thing. She is a mankiller who HAS killed now. Even serial killers let a few victims get away in the beginning.

She may have been to that place before, but now she is a sow with cubs. She may now be passing down what she was taught: that killing humans is okay. That area does not get a lot of human contact most of the year (I live near the area, a lot of places are unhikable for more than a month or two a year), and is just now able to find easy 'victims' to teach her cubs how to kill. Because her actions were very much not 'standing her ground and defending', they were specifically violent to non threats exhibiting a hunting type of behavior.

Though how you've managed to never read or hear about mankillers before, especially given that one was at that specific campground two years before, when you're 'obviously' such an expert surprises me. None of her actions are sane or ordinary for a grizzly bear.

The only time I have seen grizzlies in the presence of humans in the wild has been the Copper River salmon runs in Alaska. And, at that point, as long as you don't annoy the bear and let the bear eat salmon to their fill, there's no problem. But, in the WY area, when you see a grizzly, you merely make yourself known through noise and the bear leaves. The bear does not then turn around and hunt you in the night when you sleep.

[Don H]

Guns and pepper spray, both effective. I've carried both in Gallatin, I always carried spray while bow hunting.

[Lone Wolf]

No, the whole "black bear mom will protect her cubs" is a fallacy. Black bears are very likely to run away and I've read multiple instances of cubs being taken from mom bears without the mom attacking. Grizzlies, however, are much different - they are more likely to attack when perceiving a threat. And this thread pertains to a grizzly, not a black bear, which is what you saw in Damascus.

that's why this thread belongs in something other than an AT forum

[bronconite]

If you don't want to accept or even read the passage and have completely ruled out its validity, so be it - that's you're perogative. For me, a professor of wildlife conservation saying that a mother grizzly is likely to be more aggressive and also to stand her ground upon perceiving a threat instead of running away is compelling information. But if you disagree, that's fine too.

I read what you posted. And, yes, mother Grizzlies are known to be more aggressive than Black Bear Mothers. More aggressive does not equal what she did.

Here are the facts.

1)This mother Grizz attacked sleeping humans with no provocation.
2)Many biologists believe this type of behavior will be repeated.
3)These killer bears are destroyed and studied
4)3 isn't going to change anytime soon
5)I believe a large caliber revolver is prudent when in Griz country
6)It's time for me to go to bed
7)I agree with Lone Wolf



What does your professor of wildlife conservation say about destroying killer bears?

[hellomolly]

I never said she was hunting for food, you did. I said she was hunting. Fun and sport are often the same thing. She is a mankiller who HAS killed now. Even serial killers let a few victims get away in the beginning.


But, in the WY area, when you see a grizzly, you merely make yourself known through noise and the bear leaves. The bear does not then turn around and hunt you in the night when you sleep.


How many bears have been PROVEN to have hunted humans simply for fun, completely and totally absent of even the possibility of the bear hunting for hunger or responding to a perceived threat, real or imagined?

I have never heard of it. I have heard of bears attacking people who didn't SEEM to be a threat, but since I'm not that bear, how can I know if the bear felt threatened or not? It's easy to assign human expectations to animals but we have to remember that they aren't humans and don't experience the world the way we do.

I'm sorry, but anyone who truly thinks a bear mother with cubs is going to go sniffing around and attacking an unknown entity for fun (again, just using that word is ridiculous when you're talking about a bear) can't really be taken seriously, IMO.

[bronconite]

Somehow I doubt the woman who was having her arm chewed off would have had the ability to grab a gun and shoot and, in such close proximity to other campers, she probably would have been more likely to kill another human than harm the bear.

And even if she was able to shoot the bear... in such close quarters, in the dark... she'd probably hit the bear somewhere non fatal and just piss it off more.

So actually, this is definitely NOT why it's a good idea to have a gun in grizzly country.

Well, now we now there is a topic you now less about than Grizzly behavior

[hellomolly]

I read what you posted. And, yes, mother Grizzlies are known to be more aggressive than Black Bear Mothers. More aggressive does not equal what she did.

Here are the facts.

1)This mother Grizz attacked sleeping humans with no provocation.
2)Many biologists believe this type of behavior will be repeated.
3)These killer bears are destroyed and studied
4)3 isn't going to change anytime soon
5)I believe a large caliber revolver is prudent when in Griz country
6)It's time for me to go to bed
7)I agree with Lone Wolf



What does your professor of wildlife conservation say about destroying killer bears?

Uh, he's not "mine." Just someone who probably knows more about bears than you do. Sorry.

That's fine - it is going to be killed and it is going to be studied. Most everyone here will get what they want. If that's all this is about, why are you arguing?

You forgot the fact that as humans, we have no idea what the bear experienced, though, or perceived and can never assume to know any of those things.

[KnittingMelissa]

How many bears have been PROVEN to have hunted humans simply for fun, completely and totally absent of even the possibility of the bear hunting for hunger or responding to a perceived threat, real or imagined?



The bear that was there two years ago.

[bronconite]

Well, now we now there is a topic you now less about than Grizzly behavior

my eyboard button between the J and the L has quit

[hellomolly]

Well, now we now there is a topic you now less about than Grizzly behavior

So you think that a woman whose having her arm chewed off in the middle of the night in the dark will have the ability to aim a gun at a grizzly well enough that she will kill it and not simply miss and potentially hit someone or something else or hit a nonfatal area and piss it off? Because that's what I was saying and basically it's common sense.

[Don H]

Backpacking along the Toklat River in Denali we saw griz every. day.http://www.paddlinginstructor.com/images/stories/blog/bear_warning_sign.jpg

[Lone Wolf]

on and on the BS will go now with the armchair Qbacks. never played the game but know-it-all :rolleyes:

[hellomolly]

The bear that was there two years ago.

Could you provide something that proves that the female there in 2008 had been there multiple times and had also attacked "for fun?" What I read was that she had been there once and was captured after biting a man who was in his tent - nothing about food, threats or repeat visits.

And even if you can, one point does not a line make, sorry.

[gregp]

Somehow I doubt the woman who was having her arm chewed off would have had the ability to grab a gun and shoot and, in such close proximity to other campers, she probably would have been more likely to kill another human than harm the bear.

And even if she was able to shoot the bear... in such close quarters, in the dark... she'd probably hit the bear somewhere non fatal and just piss it off more.

So actually, this is definitely NOT why it's a good idea to have a gun in grizzly country.

I'd sooner take my chances with the gun. HYOH! :D

[hellomolly]

I'd sooner take my chances with the gun. HYOH! :D

Go for it - no one's stopping you. ;)

[Lone Wolf]

I'd sooner take my chances with the gun. HYOH! :D

yup. you're smarter than the average molly

[KnittingMelissa]

Could you provide something that proves that the female there in 2008 had been there multiple times and had also attacked "for fun?" What I read was that she had been there once and was captured after biting a man who was in his tent - nothing about food, threats or repeat visits.

And even if you can, one point does not a line make, sorry.

So what you're saying is that, no matter what evidence I provide, it doesn't count. Well, isn't that just a barrel full of laughs. I admit that you're so set in your stubborn ways that you'd put your foot to the pedal while your car slid across a sheet of ice, but, eventually, well, actually, you'll never have to deal with any of this because you never hike or camp in grizzly country.

People like myself do.

Have a nice day!

[bronconite]

So you think that a woman whose having her arm chewed off in the middle of the night in the dark will have the ability to aim a gun at a grizzly well enough that she will kill it and not simply miss and potentially hit someone or something else or hit a nonfatal area and piss it off? Because that's what I was saying and basically it's common sense.

Just keep talking

[Lone Wolf]

Just keep talking

it is hillarious, no? :)

[hellomolly]

So what you're saying is that, no matter what evidence I provide, it doesn't count.


Can you read? I said one point does not a line make. Do you know what that means? It means... one instance does not indicate a trend. One murder does not mean a spree. Etc etc etc. Get it?

So I ask you to prove that bears kill for fun... and you cite one instance of a bear who attacked once, with no supporting evidence to show that the bear had attacked in the past or had attacked unprovoked... and when I call you on it, you tell me I'm dense and huff off. Right. :rolleyes:

[hellomolly]

Just keep talking

okie doke! just keep failing to make a point. :D

[Don H]

Gee, I thought the sign was funny.

[hellomolly]

it is hillarious, no? :)

almost as hilarious as your post count! :eek::eek::eek:

[Lone Wolf]

almost as hilarious as your post count! :eek::eek::eek:

honey, i've walked the walk. you just talk. meetin' your man friend for a few miles makes you still ignorant. keep on flappin' the pie hole :D

[KnittingMelissa]

it is hillarious, no? :)

It's kinda like watching that guy do tech support on The Website is Down. Amazing and amusing at the same time. :banana

I can suddenly identify with that poor support guy and what he has to deal with, but outside of the tech community.

[hellomolly]

Seriously though, you guys are fun! Enjoy sitting in a cozy circle nodding your heads at one another and agreeing. Kumbayah. Sorry I have an alternate viewpoint that I have supported... It's like someone disagrees with you, you yell at them and insult them, they respond and you act as though they don't have the right to have an alternate opinion. Whatever, though. It's been amusing.

[bronconite]

okie doke! just keep failing to make a point. :D

You continue to do it for me;)

[Virginia Trails]

Backpacking along the Toklat River in Denali we saw griz every. day.

That's the best warning sign I've ever seen!

[hellomolly]

honey, i've walked the walk. you just talk. meetin' your man friend for a few miles makes you still ignorant. keep on flappin' the pie hole :D

Hiking the AT doesn't make you more knowledgeable about anything other than hiking your own hike on the AT, and it certainly doesn't make you more knowledgeable than anyone about grizzlies, since there are no grizzlies on the AT. If boosting that post count makes you happier about yourself, though, keep on keepin' on. ;)

[Lone Wolf]

Hiking the AT doesn't make you more knowledgeable about anything other than hiking your own hike on the AT, and it certainly doesn't make you more knowledgeable than anyone about grizzlies, since there are no grizzlies on the AT. If boosting that post count makes you happier about yourself, though, keep on keepin' on. ;)

go to bed kid. this is an AT FORUM. start your thread about your vast knowledge of griz in another forum

[bronconite]

it is hillarious, no? :)

I'm smilin'

[hellomolly]

go to bed kid. this is an AT FORUM. start your thread about your vast knowledge of griz in another forum

Yeah... and THIS is a thread ABOUT A GRIZZLY ATTACK. :rolleyes: Don't like it, have it moved or something.

[Lone Wolf]

Yeah... and THIS is a thread ABOUT A GRIZZLY ATTACK. :rolleyes: Don't like it, have it moved or something.

bed time :)

[hellomolly]

bed time :)

sleep tight. :)

[Lone Wolf]

bottom line. guns are the answer. guns would have prevented this

[hellomolly]

bottom line. guns are the answer. guns would have prevented this

funny!

are you sleep walking or something? :-?

[bronconite]

sleep tight. :)

I suspect that you're never wrong AND have to have the last word

[bronconite]

bottom line. guns are the answer. guns would have prevented this

now you're just trying to get the thread closed

[hellomolly]

I suspect that you're never wrong AND have to have the last word

so is that why you keep posting...?

and no, i just like to defend myself. i've been wrong once or twice... ;) just kidding.

[KnittingMelissa]

Seriously though, you guys are fun! Enjoy sitting in a cozy circle nodding your heads at one another and agreeing. Kumbayah. Sorry I have an alternate viewpoint that I have supported... It's like someone disagrees with you, you yell at them and insult them, they respond and you act as though they don't have the right to have an alternate opinion. Whatever, though. It's been amusing.

Your alternate view is that the bear was so stupid she thought a tent was a danger, and then attacked three different tents to defend cubs. And then showed up again the next day because she had forgotten that the tents were a threat the night before.

And that she shouldn't be put down because it was just instinct for her to attack humans, that it's normal.

I'm sorry, but your 'alternate view' is like the view of mother who smear honey on their children's faces for bears to lick off because it's cute.

[hellomolly]

just kidding about only being wrong once or twice that is. i've been wrong, of course. but seriously, this has gotten way out of hand. i'm just of a different opinion than most of you. that's it. tried to start off having a civilized conversation and promptly was called an idiot, obtuse and a troll. guess that's just how it is on WB when you have an opinion contrary to the majority.

[bronconite]

so is that why you keep posting...?

and no, i just like to defend myself. i've been wrong once or twice... ;) just kidding.

Actually, I'm still here because LW kkeeps posting and he is VERY informative. I keep posting because I can't keep my mouth shut.

[hellomolly]

Your alternate view is that the bear was so stupid she thought a tent was a danger, and then attacked three different tents to defend cubs. And then showed up again the next day because she had forgotten that the tents were a threat the night before.

And that she shouldn't be put down because it was just instinct for her to attack humans, that it's normal.

I'm sorry, but your 'alternate view' is like the view of mother who smear honey on their children's faces for bears to lick off because it's cute.

My view is this: we cannot know what the bear perceived because we are not bears and are not inside this bear's head. Therefore we cannot assume to know why this bear did what it did. it could have been hunger, it could have been a perceived threat, it could have been neither of those things, it could have been both. etc etc etc. You could be right, you could be wrong, I could be right, I could be wrong. I'm saying it's impossible to know for sure.

Not even sure what the heck you're saying regarding honey... :-? not going to touch that one.

[bronconite]

My view is this: we cannot know what the bear perceived because we are not bears and are not inside this bear's head. Therefore we cannot assume to know why this bear did what it did. it could have been hunger, it could have been a perceived threat, it could have been neither of those things, it could have been both. etc etc etc. You could be right, you could be wrong, I could be right, I could be wrong. I'm saying it's impossible to know for sure.


And at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. The fact is, she is a proven threat to humans and needs to be destroyed.

[Alligator]

Whew, I thought I'd give you folks a chance to go eat dinner, stretch out, and relax before bedtime.