gonefishing4eve

A bear is as fast as a horse, you might get one shot. After being startled by a charging bear I doubt that if you did get that one shot off, you would even hit the bear. You would get just one chance maybe. Not running in that area would have been the right choice to make. He took a risk and blew his shot at survival.

gonefishing4eve

Most bears are already in close proximity to humans. I guess we kill them all now. A wildlife corridor is a route that wildlife generally use for travel from one geographic location to another. There are usually environmental constraints that make these routes popular for wildlife and humans alike, such as deep ravines, mountain passes and bodies of water.

Killer B

The Bottom Line is this, huh?

Would you rather have some sort of personal protection, or simply die at the hands of the Killer?

The choice is always yours.... I'll choose to try & protect myself (family) if I can....

BTW. It was a "She", I think....

gonefishing4eve

Killer B- I will protect myself and my family when it becomes neccesary. When on my bike in the woods, I use my brain as my personal protection. I would not ride where it is suggested that you don't. I ride with someone when I can. I tell someone where I am going and so on. If carrying a weapon when you ride makes you feel safer then more power to you. It's you right, enjoy it. Until I run into the crazy guy from New Brunswick on my local bike trail, I'll leave my weapon at home. It's useless against a charging grizzly or mountain lion anyway.

woof

England killed all its bears and seems to be better off for it.

Raiyn

Wow and I thought the "they'll make more" comment was bad.

oamsfl

Exactly why I chose against mtbing in west yellowstone last autmn,I was told to be careful with the grizzlies there had been sightings outside the park recently, that was enough for me,I regreted later on the way home not doing but I guess it wasnt a bad decision............Tread Lightly!

willtsmith_nwi

Thank you for the correction as the bear being threatened in the United States. Apparently, there is plenty of them in the territories we're talking about.

What I meant by "they'll make more" is that the loss of one bear means more opportunities for all the other bears. One bear died, that probably means 2-3 more cubs will survive. Nature is a *****. All species overproduce to fill up available resources.

There are some REAL natural tragedies out there. Some species are very fragile by their nature. Some species don't have good reproduction rates, have VERY long gestation periods, and do a poor job of bringing their offspring to maturity. The grizzly bear is NOT one of these species.

Mommas have 1-3 cubs if I recall. The number that survive is dependent on the amount of available resources. One less adult bear simply means more cubs will survive. The species replenishes itself. Like I said, they'll make more bears. And in case you didn't realize it, that bear was going to die someday anyway.

If your being a "naturalist", try to keep "nature" in perspective. The killing of a single animal rarely affects population.

oamsfl

I am sorry but it's your attitude about the matter that should be put into perspective,
Bears ,(all kind) dont have natural enemies as adults.only humans ,old age & disease (which usuallyhas to do w/ human interaction).
Wildlife has limited resources & domain left, we need to respect what little they have left, And share the enjoyment of it being there with care & respect.


"Tread Lightly!!!!!"

C Law

Most notably, **** sapiens sapiens

RageoftheDragon

First off, regard the earlier post about the situation of Grizzlies in Canada before making the asinine statement about there being plenty of bears in those regions. Secondly, your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs contradict each other, and really don't make all that much sense towards any argument. Thirdly, species do not simply overfill niches. There are cycles of overpopulation and underpopulation, based on many variable such as prey availability, weather cycles and unfortunately human encroachment. Humans are continually overpopulating, yes, something that sets us apart.

Yes, the killing of a single animal will doubtful affect the entire population. It's just a ****ty situation for both parties involved.

Cerberusgl

He is a story I heard a while back. https://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...&oneclick=true
I don't know what caliber the Ranger used but he dropped the bear after firing 11 shots. In another article it had said the bears was only a few feet away from the ranger when it finally dropped.

rockymtn_girl

Perhaps you should take the time to read this report on a study conducted by the University of Calgary on the grizzly population in Banff National Park and the Kananaskis (Canmore is in this area).

This study conclusively shows that birth rates are declining on the grizzly population in this area and of 71 bear deaths, 75% of females and 86% of males, was caused by humans, i.e. vehicular, trains (bears are drawn to the tracks where grain from grain cars has been left behind by passing trains), hunters and deaths due to human encounters.

Please reference your sources to support your claims.

willtsmith_nwi

The death of one animal in a species means more food availability for another member of that species. It means more food for some momma bear and her cubs. It means one or more momma bears will raise 2-3 cubs to adulthood rather than just (or none).

ALL species overpopulate. This is the way nature works. Species expand their territories by overpopulating and forcing members out of their home ranges.

Raiyn

Wrong. Humans are the only species to overpopulate. Untill we got here the animals had distinct areas in which they were found. Why don't you do some research before you start spewing random garbage?

BIGPAKO

+1

LowCel 

Holy thread resurection batman!!!!

the wonginator

holy year-old thread ressurection!

ZachS

sounds like a job for a pillowcase full of doorknobs.

Pheard

I often go biking alone and I'm totally paranoid of a mountain lion or something coming at me. I carry a 6 inch lock blade. Probly wouldn't help, but makes me feel better.

TimJ

It's "couldn't care less".

It's not about putting one life ahead of another, it's recognizing life vs. putting everything on some hierarchy where you, with your gun, get to be on top. How much of a "problem" can a bear be, after all? He's a freaking bear. The woman was the one able to think abstractly and express complex concepts, not the giant, fur-covered wild animal.

No one's putting one life ahead of another except you. That's the point.

Terrapin Ben

I carry a large knife with me when i am riding. I do not think a gun would really protect me if a grizzly decided to attack. Like it was said before, if you unloaded your wepon into it, and let's assume you were shaken up pretty bad to see a grizley running at you, so you just unloaded in its face, he would continue to charge with six bullets in his face. I bet shooting him would only get his addrenaline pumping harder. A gun can be used to hunt grizley but i don't think it offers much offense to a grizzly attack, let alone a handgun. Who are you afraid of running into on the trail Killer B? Knowing there are people riding with concealed weapons is a little more frightening than running into some wildlife on the trail...

TimJ

Wow, I read through 2 pages and didn't notice how old this thread was. Nice to see most people accept wild animals as a natural risk rather than some kind of unnacceptable threat.

swifferman

I read the first line and was like "wow the exact same thing happened again?"

Luckily it's just a gigantorically old thread.

C4Byke

My god is this thread ridiculous! There's this thing, err, idea called evolution. This evolution idea gave animals, like this grizzly, the physiological tools to tear into soft little creatures, like us. Evolution also gave us a few tools, the most important of which is our large BRAIN. Frankly, I'm not sure if I understand this 'Ride at your own risk' statement; if it was ride at your own risk-than why did the bear need to be shot? So if there is a sign at a junkyard that says 'enter at your own risk' and you go in and get attacked the dog, does the dog need to be shot? And to the IDIOT that thinks that the answer is going riding with a gun, that's a cowards way out- by that mentality I should be able to don body armor and an MP5, go into your territory (your home) and make it my playground. Why not, I'm smarter than you so that gives me that right, doesn't it? What a bunch of B.S., You jesus-freak gun-nuts need to get a grip and realize that, as much as you wish it was, it's not the 1600's anymore. Which reminds me of a conversation that I was having with this hunter moron the other day. I asked him, what about killing deer is so great anyway other than some sort of distorted ego complex? He said, well now - there are too many deer and they run in front of cars and cause people to die, and you wouldn't want that would you? Oh ok, so it's your general love for the common man that forces you to kill harmless woodland creatures. Hmm, then I asked him "good theory, but how does killing THIS animal prevent THAT animal from running in the street? I mean if that was true, we should just execute everyone in prison because a few of them might be murderers right?" Sorry for the rant, but Bush and his constituency gets under my skin-especially after were electronically tracking one of natures greatest successes and murdering it in cold blood. Guns are for *******.