grizzly kills hunter in montana

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bears kill very few humans. That's why it's such a big story when it happens. If you want a safe world, get rid of the species that kill the most humans: bacteria, viruses, Homo sapiens ...
 
The protected habitat here in the U.S. all together is larger than most countries of Europe. As far as I am aware, no large mammal species is in danger of extinction here, though a few individuals of species which cannot restrict themselves to set aside habitat do get trimmed from the population. Problems most often arise when people who are unfamiliar with wild animals go into their habitat and behave as if they are in a petting zoo.
 
PropThePolecat said:
Thats a ridicilous statement. Animals all over the world are going extinct, because of humans overhunting them and encroaching on their habitat. It has nothing to do with "evolution at work".
Click to expand...

It has everything to do with evolution at work. Species have been encroaching on the habitat of other species since the game began. The only difference where humans are concerned is that we are better at it than any other species ever has been before and some of us feel bad about it. Also, we make an effort to limit our impact instead of nature having to do that for us. Same game and same rules as always, just a new star player on the scene.
 
........ amending the Endangered Species Act to clarify that it is legal to shoot a grizzly bear in self-defense or in defense of another person.
Click to expand...

Legal or not I say better to be judged by 12 than packed by 6.

I feel for the hunter's family.

Bruce
 
Codger_64 said:
The protected habitat here in the U.S. all together is larger than most countries of Europe. As far as I am aware, no large mammal species is in danger of extinction here, though a few individuals of species which cannot restrict themselves to set aside habitat do get trimmed from the population. Problems most often arise when people who are unfamiliar with wild animals go into their habitat and behave as if they are in a petting zoo.
Click to expand...
this unfortunatly can be true in many circumstances.
don't ask me how they mistook a grizzly for a black bear. and then went after it into thick bush, the absolute worst thing you can do is push a wounded grizzly. they will pretty much attack everytime. it is sad and i feel for the familys. but, sometimes folks just don't get it. i don't know what they were thinking.
 
PropThePolecat said:
Thats a ridicilous statement. Animals all over the world are going extinct, because of humans overhunting them and encroaching on their habitat. It has nothing to do with "evolution at work".
Click to expand...
Sorry,maybe I should have said evolving at work.
The strongest,smartest,most adaptable will always be the survivor & that happens to be humans.(for now)
If we encroach on a species habitat & that species can't adapt to our encroachment & goes extinct,sorry,
but extinction & evolving are naturally occuring events also.
We are products of nature also after all.
 
bearhunter said:
this unfortunatly can be true in many circumstances.
don't ask me how they mistook a grizzly for a black bear. and then went after it into thick bush, the absolute worst thing you can do is push a wounded grizzly. they will pretty much attack everytime. it is sad and i feel for the familys. but, sometimes folks just don't get it. i don't know what they were thinking.
Click to expand...
He saw a bear,he shot a bear.
They should make out of staters take a hunters safety course spelling out the difference between the two types of bears before selling them a license.
He didn't make a clean kill & I doubt the bear did either.
 
mykel m said:
He saw a bear,he shot a bear.
They should make out of staters take a hunters safety course spelling out the difference between the two types of bears before selling them a license.
He didn't make a clean kill & I doubt the bear did either.
Click to expand...
go to my last post above. EVERYONE in or out of state has to take and pass the test before you can get a tag.
you guys have a good day. i'm leaving for a day or two to go trad. archery elk hunting. wish me luck:)
i'll be happy if i just have a close encounter with an elk. chances are that i will see a bear. i haven't bought my bear tag yet so i'll just have to look and let it pass.
 
I recently had an online discussion with a gentleman from TX (I'm from TX) who SEEMED to be advocating much wider hunting of wolves and grizzlies in the western states. His reasoning stemmed from an evident belief that the existence of wolves and grizzlies was a strong danger to the humans living in those states which had brought these predators back into the environment, and that wolves and grizzlies were preying on livestock to the point where ranchers were being driven out of business.

Whenever directly asked whether he advocated shooting these species back into near oblivion, he would deny such intent. But during the discussion it was always clear that he thought the only way to reduce wolf and grizzly populations to an acceptable level was through intensive hunting, as in the past.

Lots of folks agreed with him, but many didn't. It seemed that there is a prevalent belief that bears and wolves in those western states such as Montana and Wyoming posed a real economic and personal risk to folks living there, and that no one who lived anywhere else could possibly understand the nature of the problem, and therefore shouldn't be involved in discussions of policy.

What do folks think about this?

Personally, as much of the ranching done in the western states is done on nationally owned and managed wilderness, I feel that anyone who runs cattle or sheep on such public property has to bear the risk of loss, although at the moment there is a restitution program in place to compensate ranchers for livestock lost to wolves and grizzlies.

The public lands belong to everyone, not just the ranchers who run cattle there, or the residents of states where parks are located. As a resident of TX, I want to be able to take a trip to Yellowstone or Glacier or other such parks and view these top predators. I will assume the risk involved. My feeling is that anyone who chooses to live in proximity to "wilderness" also tacitly assumes the risks along with the benefits.

Andy
 
Cool test !!! Scored a 93%, not bad for a Texan !! You must score at least an 80% to qualify. I wouldn't hunt bears even if given the chance but I would like to camp in bear country, as long as I was with someone that knew the country and bear habits, I would be hunting with a camera !!! Grizz are majestic animals !!!
 
I got a 93% on that online bear ID test, flying seat-of-the-pants.

I think it's somewhat tasteless to hate on the dead hunter.
 
bearhunter said:
go to my last post above. EVERYONE in or out of state has to take and pass the test before you can get a tag.
you guys have a good day. i'm leaving for a day or two to go trad. archery elk hunting. wish me luck:)
i'll be happy if i just have a close encounter with an elk. chances are that i will see a bear. i haven't bought my bear tag yet so i'll just have to look and let it pass.
Click to expand...

Got home yesterday from a 6 day archery hunt. It was the best year I've ever had hunting, even though we didn't get anything. We were surrounded by elk every day. Some as close as 20 yards. Unfortunately they never presented a good shot. It was priceless though, because the rut is just starting here, and the bulls were just geting started bugling. Only saw one branch bull (6 point), a couple smaller rag horns, a few spikes and the rest were cows. In 6 days, we saw close to 50 elk. Good luck on your hunt
 
bushidomosquito said:
It has everything to do with evolution at work. Species have been encroaching on the habitat of other species since the game began. The only difference where humans are concerned is that we are better at it than any other species ever has been before and some of us feel bad about it. Also, we make an effort to limit our impact instead of nature having to do that for us. Same game and same rules as always, just a new star player on the scene. .
Click to expand...


Sorry, but i disagree.

Evolution is a genetic change of an inherited trait, which is passed down to the next generation.

The different species have found a natural balance many thousands years ago. Encroaching on habitats happens when new species are introduced by man, where they wreck havoc on the local flora and fauna. For example Hawaii, Australia, New Zealand, Guam, etc, are all suffering major problems with everything from snakes to pigs, which was introduced (willingly or not) by man.

Besides, the explosion of the human population on this planet have left little room for the rest. We're better than the other species because we've got guns, bulldozers, fishing trawlers and so forth. Its got nothing to do with natural evolution, and its not the same game thats been played for thousands of years. Mans "evolution" has been undertaken in a split-second of this planets history.
 
The different species have never found a balance. Populations rise and fall in cycles. Many species migrate looking for new habitat, so not all new species introductions were/are done by man. Nor is man alone responsible for all specie extinctions. There is still a lot of room left for critters. Even though man has been impounding water, stacking huge stones, paving roads and clearing fields for thousands of years. I don't really call that split-second change.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top