Hiker killed by grizzly near Yellowstone

[Apikuni]

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/19 ... tone-park/

[flatlander]

Attached is follow-up I found at http://news.gather.com. While a little light on facts/support, I think the decision to kill the bear is questionable if, in fact, the bear was truly tranquilized only for research purposes, and not as the result of displaying any prior aggressive behavior toward humans. The researchers decision to leave the tranquilized bear in an area occupied by 100 boy scouts [reported elsewhere] would also seem subject to question.

The grizzly bear that had killed a 70-year-old man near Yellowstone National Park last Thursday has been killed. Officials located the bear with the help of a radio collar that researchers had put on the tranquilized bear shortly before he attacked the unarmed victim, Erwin Frank Evert.

What led up to these tragic events--both the death of Erwin Frank Evert and the death of the grizzly bear--started innocently enough. A team of researchers, sent by the government to study grizzly bears, tranquilized the male bear, put a radio collar on him, and then left the area.

But Evert, the husband of one of the researchers, went back into the capture area--for some unknown reason--and apparently met with a fully awake, and not too happy, grizzly bear. The male grizzly bear mauled him to death.

Officials tracked and then shot and killed the big bad grizzly bear, but I have a real problem with this. The bear--a member of an endangered species--was in his own habitat, minding his own business, when researches decided to draft him into their research project. Was it his fault that he awoke and did what bears do--defend himself?

Not to mention that the researchers actions may have contributed to this grizzly’s aggression. According to Politics Daily:

“In 1983, a grizzly bear that had been captured 20 times and drugged 12 times dragged a man out of his tent at a campground near Yellowstone and killed him. After that attack, there was speculation that bears can sometimes become more aggressive after they've been trapped and tranquilized.”

Well duh.

[Pocketlint]

With respect, you need to read Dave Parker's post on this elsewhere on this chat.

http://glacier.nationalparkschat.com/ph ... =16&t=5083

Don't believe everything you read in these news reports that get posted here from time to time.

Keep in mind that some parts of Montana are very leftist leaning and have an agenda; Newspapers and news services report "facts" are aren't necessarily "facts".

pocketlint

[flatlander]

Thanks for providing the link to additional information.

As noted in my post, I thought the quoted follow-up lacked some credibility, but even the additional information on your link does not provide adequate justification for killing of the grizzly. Hopefully the review mentioned by Dave will answer that question.

[daveparker]

Depending on when the review and investigation is done, I should have some information in the future..

Dave

[Pocketlint]

Hi again..

I didn't mean that Dave's post would shed any light on the facts surrounding incident.
It was that he has contacts and might be able to get some real facts from those in a position to know.
Maybe he doesn't, but he is correct about waiting till the incident has been investigated.

My point was that many of these so-called news services will publish anything as "news".
They all have their little agendas...at least imo.

The folks who work in the various wildlife agencies are good people...not to say there won't be a knucklehead among them from time to time. They love these animals, especially the bears which are icons of the area. The notion that any wildlife agent would put a bear down frivolously is, frankly, a real stretch for me.

I prefer to wait for the cognizant authorities investigating the incident to give a report.
And while I wait I will give the wildlife officials "the benefit of a doubt".

pocketlint

[flatlander]

Good points, but I wonder if the paranoia over possible bear attacks hasn't had some impact on the wildlife managers as well. The Great Falls paper had a recent article of a grizzly that was 'euthanized' for killing a couple of chickens and entering someone's shed or barn looking for food. Makes me better understand why grizzlies are so "endangered"!

[Pocketlint]

Good points, but I wonder if the paranoia over possible bear attacks hasn't had some impact on the wildlife managers as well. The Great Falls paper had a recent article of a grizzly that was 'euthanized' for killing a couple of chickens and entering someone's shed or barn looking for food. Makes me better understand why grizzlies are so "endangered"!

It may look that way...I read the same article.

Here's the deal...imo

If the wildlife folks believe a bear has become habituated to breaking in human dwellings, barns, etc. because they associate them with food, then they probbaly feel the bear is going to be a continuing threat...and down he/she goes.

They'll try relocating them when possible. Bears have a habit of returning to their home territory though...so that doesn't always work.

People's safety, and safety of their livestock come before bears. That's just the way it is out here. That may seem harsh, but life itself is harsh for some folks out here.

With respect, you need to live out here a while to really understand some of these issues with wildlife.

pocketlint

[daveparker]

Well this is probably not the proper topic area to discuss this, but one point I do want to bring up...

The term "Endangered" has many different meanings to many different people, currently the bear populations are doing quite well and we have to accept with human encroachment, they are inhabiting virtually all of the environments they can, I have seen more bears around my home here, that I have in 15 years, both black and grizz.

do I agree with euthanize this bear, nope, not really, do I understand why it happened, yes I do, this bear has been habituated to humans and their food, it killed a sheep last year, was relocated and then invaded this coop, unfortunately, that is the reality of life in this part of the country and until such time as we come up with a better way to co-exist, this will continue to happen, with the influx of people that last 15 years, things are getting tight in certain areas, of course what I consider tight and what someone that lives in a urban area consider tight are two very different things Based on talking to people involved in the killing of the bear that killed the guy in Wyoming and this euthanized bear, they are in my opinion, were warranted, but remember I live here and am exposed to this 24/7 365 and others aren't..not happy, not thrilled, but I am understanding and I am a realist..

[flatlander]

I simply think it is a long stretch to extrapolate that a grizzly killing of a chicken, going through garbage cans, or even killing a sheep is such an immediate threat to humans that it must be destroyed.

Bears and humans coexisted in Glacier until 1967 without a fatality despite bears being fed from cars, at garbage dumps, etc. This suggests to me that the simple fact that a bear has become habituated to humans and their food is too low a threshold to have that bear destroyed. If not, the Park had better get out the guns and kill most of the grizzlies along the Iceberg Lake trail because I have seen many which are equally habituated to humans!

The 2009 killing of the Old Man Lake grizzly were justified because it had threatened campers and hikers over a couple of years, even after efforts to change its behavior by using the Karelian dogs had failed.

Sadly, I think the more recent grizzly killings are more a reflection of local politics than good wildlife management practice.

[daveparker]

Flatlander,

Politics always plays a roll in the destruction of wildlife, unfortunately.

Dave

[flatlander]

Dave, I completely agree.

[daveparker]

Here is a link to a very large .pdf file, about the investigation of this incident

11.26 megabytes and 105 pages in length, please download and read before you comment

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/spe ... tFinal.pdf

[Pocketlint]

Well I just finished reading the report.
The report is very thorough.

Mr Evert is 100% responsible for his own death AND the bear's death.

He knew what was going on up that drainage....and yet he went up there anyway. And he went in spite of advice from his friend Chuck Neal. His own friends and family describe him as "hardheaded". He never carried bear spray.

The snare site was well off any trail. Mr Evert knew exactly where he was going...and had to know what he was doing and getting into when he started up that hill ....off trail.

Bad luck coming on the bear as he woke up? NO. He made his own bad luck.

Mr Evert died because of his own hubris. Pure and simple.

And he caused the grizzly bear's death as a result.

It's a shame he died, but **IMO** he has no one to blame but himself.

Should the bear have been killed? I trust the people and the decision making process that was described in the report.
Reasonable folks can disagree about the decision to kill the bear( I agree with the decision), but note that if Mt Evert had minded his own business, he and the bear would both be alive today.

pocketlint

[flatlander]

Dave, thanks for posting the investigation team report.

I encourage readers to look at the report themselves, and draw their own conclusions. The report includes a fairly concise summary (see page 12 recap), so don't be intimidated by its reported 105 page length; appendices (much 'fluff') make up the bulk of the report.

I am not sure you will agree with Pocketlint's assessment that Mr. Evert was 100% responsible.

Pocketlint reported that Mr. Evert knew what was going on in the drainage, but that is not clear from the report. While Mr. Event had seen a "dangerous bear" sign posted in the area a week before his death, at which time a friend suggested that a field crew was either running hair snare traps or live capture sites, there is no proof that he personally saw any sign indicating bear trapping or closure. The only 'proof' were assertions by two IGBST personnel that he was aware of the trapping operations, while a friend and another IGBST official reported that he only saw a "Dangerous Bear" sign.

Signs stating "Danger - Bear Trap in the Area. The area behind this sign is temporarily closed. The closure is in effect from 6/9 to 6/18" were reportedly placed within 50-100 yards of all traps. However, due to a shortage of such signs, they were not placed near the "Dangerous Bear" sign observed by Mr. Evert until after his July 9 sighting. And, since the bear study field crew removed all closure signs from the incident site after leaving the grizzly, as it began to shown signs of recovery but before Mr. Evert's arrival, we don't know if he ever saw one. The explanation for the signs removal: "because this was the last day of trapping in Kitty Creek and they were not returning to the area, and the weather was cold and windy with intermittent snow showers and they believed it was unlikely that anyone would be hiking this far off maintained trails in this weather" (pg 3).

That by itself eliminates Mr. Evert from being "wholly responsible" as asserted by Pocketlint.

Mr. Evert's choice to not carry bear spray or a weapon is also insufficient to affix sole responsibility on him. Mr. Evert was a skilled scientist, knowledgeable about both his surroundings and bears. And, as asserted by one of the scientists, bear spray probably would not have made any difference in the "perfect storm" circumstances of this attack.

What surprised me most of all was the failure of the IGBST to insure that all residents were properly notified of the study. The Kitty Creek drainage only contained a small number of cabins at its lower level; I do not understand why they were not provided direct notification of the bear trapping.

Parts of the report struck me as defensive and self-serving, e.g., "the field crew regularly rode horses by Mr. Evert's cabin ... to check trapping sites and on at least 2 occasions, they observed Mr. Evert and he waved to them. Mr. Evert did not attempt to talk to the field crew when he saw them pass his cabin." Did Mr. Evert have a burden of inquiry, or does a party that creates a danger (the field crew) have the responsibility to inform innocent parties of the danger.

I was also disappointed in the attempt of IGBST personnel to lay the blame on Mr. Evert by innuendo, e.g., reporting that Mr. Evert's daughter "had spoken to her father earlier in the day and that he had expressed interest in what they were doing. she also indicate that if she had know that they were trapping she would have told her father not to go up there, but that he was rather independent ... and probably would have gone anyway" (p 90).

By the way, the report concluded by recommending that the Grizzly Bear Study Team adopt detailed standards for posting warning signs. I think we may hear more of this case in a future civil suit.