Skip to comments.Grizzly mom that mauled Yellowstone hiker euthanized after DNA links bear to 2nd hiker attack
Posted on 10/05/2011 9:19:18 AM PDT by jazusamo
BILLINGS, Mont. A grizzly bear that fatally mauled a hiker in Yellowstone National Park was killed after DNA evidence linked the animal to the scene of a second hikers death a month later, a park official said Monday.
The decision to euthanize the 250-pound female bear was meant to protect park visitors and staff, Superintendent Dan Wenk said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Yellowstone Grizzly Ping!
That’s a shame because we ‘Grizzly Moms’ are going to be a HUGE voting block come 2012. *SMIRK*
Too bad the guy lost his life, but some days we’re the bear and some days we’re the picnic lunch...
You are correct. Had she been killed he may still be alive. I bet lawyers are in touch with the Wallace family?
I am sorry, but John Wallace’ decision to hike- SOLO - in an area within 10 miles of a previous fatal bear attack- tempted his own fate.
Not disputing that, but when any wild animal kills a human it should be put down.
This outcome was predicted the moment the original decision was made, “because she was protecting her young”.
So that means they didn't take down the sow after the first murder because they were more interested in protecting the bear than park visitors.
Whoever made the decision to let the bear off the hook the first time belongs in jail....harboring a criminal.
>> 250-pound female bear
Two-fifty seems low for a grizzly sow.
Heck, I’ve had girlfriends that weighed more than *that*.
Are you going to kill every bear until you get the right bear? They waited until the DNA evidence came in and put the bear down.
Now that’s just silly, they knew the bear that killed the first person, there were witnesses.
euthenized means they killed it.
Mr Wallace’s hiking in the bear’s domain cost him his life.
The bear did what bears do.
Wow, really? /sarc
I’ll never forget the night (about forty years ago) when a bear at Sequoia National Part tore through an empty tent next door before tearing an ice chest loose from the fender region of a nearby parked car.
Next morning, we discovered that the bear took the chest about 20 yards from the (long-gone) car and ate some of the contents.
What the bear didn’t eat, was a bag of bread rolls.
We’ve called them “bear buns” ever since.
You can’t blame a grizzly for acting like a grizzly, but you CAN blame wildlife service people for acting like idiots.
There should be two bear zones. The “Inner Zone” an area where anyone hiking, camping, etc. is limited and required to be armed with and proficient in the use of a suitable firearm. If you go there and wind up as grizzly sushi - well, you were warned.
An OUTER Zone insulating the rest of the countryside where any gizz may be shot on sight to keep their numbers confined to the “Inner Zone”.
And people didn’t do what people should have done.
Spoken like a true Defenders of Wildlife member.
In a situation like this, do they euthanize the cubs as well? (meaning if the cubs are still young and won’t survive without their mother?)
WTH??? DNA evidence? What did they do? Swab the sows' cheek? Find some scat and then compared the DNA in the scat to the deceased??? Tissue in the sows paws?
"Excuse me Ms. Grizzly, may I take a sample of your DNA and see if it matches the DNA of the deceased?"
I suppose they could have found some DNA evidence at the scene that belonged to the sow, but, what then? Did they do this before or after the sow was "euthanised"?
No...what is silly is that you have hikers in a bear habitat, and you think that we have to punish the bear for doing what any wild animal would do.
I completely agree if this bear had come into a populated area outside of its normal habitat and killed someone, that you would have to deal with it appropriately. But, this is one of the very few areas in the U.S. where grizzlies thrive.
You make a good point.
I believe it’s now legal to carry a firearm in a National Park but don’t under what circumstances.
This bear may have been trapped, tagged , and DNA tested in the past. They have records like this on many of the bears in this area.
Did you read the article at all?
There were NINE bears that fed on Wallace.
Until this particular sow was linked to the second mauling death there was no indication that she did anything different than the other EIGHT bears.
Are you actually suggesting that because one hiker got killed and nine bears fed on his remains that we go out and kill nine bears (more if you count the starvation death of their cubs)?
There are an estimated 600 grizzlies in Yellowstone and there’s been very few attacks on humans over the years. This sow killed a human a couple months ago and the Park Service knew this bear did it and refused to put her down. Now it looks like she killed another human a month after her first kill.
I’ll say again, any wild animal that kills a human should be put down if the animal can be identified, no matter where it takes place.
They usually try to find a zoo or some other group that has experience with raising bears. I believe the sow that killed a man outside of Yellowstone last year had cubs that were sent to a facility in Montana. If they can’t find someone, they usually euthanize them.
Well, that is the difference in our views. So be it...
I don’t know what they did in this instance. I think it depends on their age and whether they can find a zoo or rescue facility that will take them.
I understand. Thank you.
Nah, I post articles all the time without reading them. /sarc
The word "mom" is now being used to describe a female bear. Sheesh.
The article that you may or may not have read said that NINE bears fed on Wallace.
Are you suggesting they are negligent for not tracking down and killing all NINE bears - most of which we can assume only fed on the body - as bears are wont to do?
Good point. I believe the animal rights crowd is responsible for much of this. They rant about abused, neglected pets and animals and how we’ve invaded the wild animals habitat and how we have to learn to live with them.
The majority of these groups whether it be PETA, the HSUS or wildlife groups are doing it for donations to bring lawsuits to support their organizations. The welfare of the animals in most cases with these groups comes second.
The vast majority are liberal groups so the enemedia are happy to side with them.
Sort of ironic, isn’t it that a momma bear is given a pass when killing someone protecting her young but the full force of the US Government is brought to bear on a guy shooting a grizzly on his own property while protecting his young.
Why don’t you google the prior articles on these killings, they’re educational. There’s no question this sow killed the first person and it’s DNA was found at the second scene.
You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to make the connection and it seems the Park Service made that connection, even though they refused to put the sow down after the first killing.
Idiots. And they were called so before the death of the 2nd person. I was chastised for saying once a bear tastes human blood then it is over.
I still think grizzlies should be reintroduced in California. It is after all the symbol on their state flag. The best place to reintroduce them is the hills of Malibu where the most liberal tree huggers with money live.
Exactly. And the way they’ve delayed putting this info out and making it sound like there’s still doubt shows that they know they messed up. The bunk about not being sure is to try to partially cover their blatant mistake.
There is a great deal of question, and still is, if this particular sow killed Wallace (the first person).
It’s DNA was found at the scene on Wallace along with the DNA of EIGHT OTHER BEARS.
There was no indication given that this sow did anything to Wallace other than feed on his body - as did eight other bears.
Now are you suggesting that because one hiker got mauled and NINE bears fed on his body - that the Park Service should go out and kill NINE bears?
It should have been put down after the first attack. After the first attack the bear then realized that humans are easy kills.
No. The eight other bears didn’t kill Brian Matayoshi (the first person killed).
The same evidence that linked the other eight bears to Wallace’s dead body is the same evidence that linked this particular sow to Wallace’s dead body - DNA from scat that shows she (and eight other bears) fed on his body.
There was no evidence given that would indicate this sow as more likely than any of the others to be the killer until she was linked to a second mauling death.
So do you suggest that if a hiker is killed by a bear and they show that nine bears fed on his body - that all nine bears should be killed?
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.