Posted on 08/01/2010 8:58:12 AM PDT by george76
Wildlife officials have killed a grizzly bear in Wyoming and a grizzly bear in Montana to head-off potential lawsuits.
The Montana grizzly killed and partially consumed Kevin Kammer at a Gallatin National Forest campground near Cooke City, Mont. on July 29. The Wyoming grizzly killed 70 year-old botanist Erwin Evert on June 17 on the Shoshone National Forest near the East Entrance of Yellowstone National Park.
The circumstances were quite different, but the decision to kill the bears was undoubtedly influenced by a 1996 court case over the terrible bear mauling of 16 year-old Anna Knochel at a U.S. Forest Service campground near Tucson, AZ. She was mauled by a bear that had recently inflicted minor injuries on another girl. Knochel and her family filed a $15 million lawsuit against the State of Arizona (Arizona Game & Fish Department) and the Forest Service.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Grizzly Minority Report?
They mostly just start eating it. I'm sure this guy was no exception to the rule...
She does have 2 big protective dogs that know when wildlife is around. Maybe she knows the dogs act differently when there are deer in the area or bears or cougars. Yes, a cougar is spotted there occasionally.
I hope she gets a big scare and puts up that fence.
;<)
Joking.
“There is no waiver that a person signs when they go into Yellowstone that absolves the Park Service if the tourist happens to get killed by a Grizzly or other animal. At the very least the dangers of being in the park or, as in the most recent case, near the park should be made very clear to the public.”
As a taxpayer, I don’t want “the government” to get into the defensive business of getting signed waivers from people going into parks.
I don’t want the lifeguards getting signed waivers from beach visitors, lest they get bit by sharks.
I don’t want the governments to be financially liable for “acts of God” which is what I think encounters with wildlife happen to be.
Signs are good. At the Grand Canyon, stay on the paths and don’t climb over the barriers to get a daring picture.
If a visitor gets bit or falls off the edge, it is their own responsibility, not that of the Park Service or taxpayers in general.
In many cases, current estimates of predator range and populations are total crap historically, but don't let your desire for control via a socialist game management mythology get in the way.
Authorities in British Comlubia,, Canada must have a program to deal with bears.
The B.C. government kills approximately 50 problem bears each year[42] and overall spends more than one million dollars annually to address bear complaints, relocate bears and kill them.[42]
Footnote #42 Ciarniello, L.; Davis, H. & Wellwood, D. (2002), “Bear Smart” Community Program Background Report, BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/bearsmart_bkgdr.pdf, retrieved October 30, 2009
Actually I’ve always thought that relocating problem grizzlies to Marin County would be a good idea. The grizzly appears on California’s state flag but have been extinct here for some time. Marinites are mostly unarmed advocates of gun control and would pose no threat to the majestic creatures.
I hear you, but isn't different if you have a known man-eater? Catch and release of a man-eating bear is like letting a child-rapist or a multiple murderer back into society without any monitoring.
In the instant case, the issue is whether the “save the bear” mentality which is deeply ingrained in the Predator Panderer Programs (PPP) led to the state creating a clear and present danger to public health and safety.
They did. The jury correctly awarded damages.
IMHO, the jury failed to require the entirety of assets of the bureaucrats involved to be seized before any taxpayer money was used. The salaries, other assets, and pension/retirement assets might have lightened the burden on the taxpayer AND started a salutary change in bureaucratic mentality.
The answer to your question about whether we need a human as compared to an animal raises disturbing issues.
When animal rights whacko mentality becomes law, and mere beasts are a de facto protected class, it can be said that Americans need to seriously revise the management of animals.
I’d start with firing all game department personnel. Socialists willing to allow predators to maul, kill, and even eat humans are in serious need of much time in a rubber room
Let’s not forget the clear need to better regulate their psychoactive drug intake.
“You enter a wildlife area at your own risk.”
Yes but that means a person has common sense and most people nowadays don’t have any.
Especiallu when we consider who is doing the sniffing. A bear’s sense of smell is nothing short of amazing.
The journals of the Lewis and Clark expidition are hilarious to read when they get to grizz country, and give the first accounts of “dumb white man meets big bear.” Ain’t much changed in 200 years.
There were plenty of bear stories by the pioneers in NYS...years before Lewis & Clarke.
Oops...No E on Clark.
Yes, but the L/C journals tell of being warned repeatedly by the Indians of the danger from the grizz. Clark huffed in the journal the these should not trouble the white man, as they were armed with modern weapons.
Two weeks later, the journal records their discomfit and the necessity of sending three men to do one man’s job: two to watch everyone’s back, and the one man needed for the job.
The journal does not record what the local Indian dialect was for “we told you.”
LOL, it's called "Sovereign immunity."
IOW, the almighty state is the sovereign and you are the "subject."
Agreed. While much of the situation is open for political debate, fact is two bears ate people and must be destroyed before they act on a desire to have more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.