Day hike gone bad

[ERSS]

Looks like a Grizz tore up a hiker today in the Park. Thoughts go out to the family...

Hard to believe that is the first human fatality caused by a Grizzly in the park since 1986.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=157&sid=16262941

 

[huntbux]

I have been to Yellowstone once and saw no bears and tons of wolves. Sad to hear.

 

[belly-deep]

No gun or bear spray. Either could have saved his life.

 

[Carrion Carrier]

Hiking in YNP without bear spray is silly.

 

[belly-deep]

Hiking in YNP without bear spray is silly.

Hiking in any griz country without spray or lead is silly

 

[mightyhunter]

The park is downplaying this death as an isolated incident. There were two deaths just outside YNP last year. Maulings are also up. All of this is not mere coincidence. I carry a gun or spray when hiking anywhere. Although I am not convinced that a gun or pepper spray would change the outcome in every human and grizzly bear encounter, I am convinced that nothing will take the place of awareness of the danger and not letting your guard down ever. You can't assume that you are safe from a bear attack while in the backcountry either hiking or camping. I took a 13 mile hike yesterday not far from YNP. There were fresh grizzly tracks on most of the upper trail. My eyes and ears were on high alert, especially when walking through thick pine forest. Sometimes I feel like some old western actor with my hand on my .41 magnum while hiking. I am seeing more grizzly bear sign every year. I believe that the number of bears has been intentionally downplayed in YNP and the surrounding areas. In NW Wyoming, there is usually at least one grizzly bear in every minor drainage. It is my opinion that these bears have recovered and management should be turned over to the states. Obviously, this wouldn't allow grizzly bear hunting in YNP. With the wolf wars still undecided, this issue will be the next ESA problem that needs resolution. My sympathy to the loss experienced by this family. I am sure that despite the signs and warnings, these poor folks had no idea of the potential risk that was involved when they left the safety of their vehicle and went hiking in the park.

 

[huntbux]

Hiking in YNP without bear spray is silly.

completely agree

 

[Ben Lamb]

The park is downplaying this death as an isolated incident. There were two deaths just outside YNP last year. Maulings are also up. All of this is not mere coincidence.

Those two deaths were completely avoidable. In the slough creek death and mauling, it was discovered that an amateur photographer had been leaving bait piles for the bears to get them close enough for some good snapshots. The sow was sick, and malnourished and the cubs were not doing well either. It was a perfect storm of stupid people, and the rough lives of bears.

The one up the North Fork was a screw up of monumental proportions on the guy who got whacked and by the USFWS for not properly signing the area. I don't think you can use those two to show increased conflict (which is certainly occurring). A lot of the increased conflict is due to dramatic losses in food supplies (Yellowstone cutthroat and white bark pine) as well as increasing numbers. Grizz aren't specialists like other predators, and can switch food sources if needed, but it's going to be bumpy until they figure out what that food source really is.

Increased people in the backcountry and front country around yellowstone, more subdivisions on winter range, more houses in bear habitat as well as the expanding population are leading to increased conflict.

Absolutely agree that they're recovered, and should be delisted. A hunt would do a lot to improve the conflict I believe. Either by eliminating problem animals, or just teaching the big bruins that just because we're soft on the outside and crunchy on the inside doesn't make us a good meal.

 

[Carrion Carrier]

Those two deaths were completely avoidable. In the slough creek death and mauling, it was discovered that an amateur photographer had been leaving bait piles for the bears to get them close enough for some good snapshots. The sow was sick, and malnourished and the cubs were not doing well either. It was a perfect storm of stupid people, and the rough lives of bears.

The one up the North Fork was a screw up of monumental proportions on the guy who got whacked and by the USFWS for not properly signing the area. I don't think you can use those two to show increased conflict (which is certainly occurring). A lot of the increased conflict is due to dramatic losses in food supplies (Yellowstone cutthroat and white bark pine) as well as increasing numbers. Grizz aren't specialists like other predators, and can switch food sources if needed, but it's going to be bumpy until they figure out what that food source really is.

Increased people in the backcountry and front country around yellowstone, more subdivisions on winter range, more houses in bear habitat as well as the expanding population are leading to increased conflict.

Absolutely agree that they're recovered, and should be delisted. A hunt would do a lot to improve the conflict I believe. Either by eliminating problem animals, or just teaching the big bruins that just because we're soft on the outside and crunchy on the inside doesn't make us a good meal.

I'd just like to add that guy from IL heard the drugged bear was there and went to take it's picture. He found it.

 

[Ben Lamb]

He was a well known fixture up the N. Fork and had some bear knowledge. Just can't fathom why anyone would go looking for a pissed off, drugged up grizzly bear.

 

[Goldtip]

He was a well known fixture up the N. Fork and had some bear knowledge. Just can't fathom why anyone would go looking for a pissed off, drugged up grizzly bear.

Exactly, I've helped a game warden with a couple drugged bears back in the late 80's in MT. Those bears are wide awake and looking at you while your tagging their ear and pulling a tooth. The parlytic agent may keep them slowed for awhile as they come around, but it doesn't stop that they are pissed off or that they have first hand eye witness knowledge that something on two legs did this too them. That guy got more than he bargained for.

 

[Big luke1981]

My condolences to his famiy. I agree that a $20 can of spray or a side arm and this could have been prevented. I have never understood why anyone would want to go hiking in the back country of yellowstone without protection.

 

[mightyhunter]

Ben Lamb,

Thanks for the post downplaying the two deaths from last year.

The man killed on Kitty Creek in Wyoming last year may have had some culpability but not as much as you suggest. There was tons of misinformation pushed out by USFWS about this incident. The guy was less than a mile from his cabin (USFS lease) walking a trail route that he had used for years. That trail route is also used by boys at a Boy Scout camp just minutes away. Yes, the deceased knew the idiots for the government had been trapping and drugging a bear. There is nothing suggesting that he knew where the drugged bear was or that he knew it was still in the area. The trappers left a drugged bear by a trail and removed the warning signs on their way out. I have hiked that trail and it has a couple of different routes. Had I walked in there after the idiots removed the signs, would my mauling be my fault? The Cody Enterprise had some great articles on this that debunked much of the misinformation from the federal government. I think Carol Cloudwalker wrote most of them.

The guy in the campground out of Cooke City was sleeping in an approved campground in a small tent. Was this mauling his fault? What about the young man who was also mauled at the campground or the older lady in another campsite? Was that their fault too? It is my understanding that a photographer baiting the bears was another piece of misinformation put out by USFWS. Please identify who this alleged photographer was. It is my understanding that the baiting incident was debunked. You have perpetuated it with your comment.The bear was hungry and wandered into a campground. The important question was why was this bear and her cubs so malnourished.

Last year, Brian Loeper, was mauled seriously by a grizzly bear while deer hunting at Boulder Basin off the South Fork. In 2009, Jerry Ruth, was mangled by a grizzly bear in the sagebrush off Line Creek near Clark, Wyoming. He got off his ATV and was attacked. Was that his fault? I believe another hunter was mauled in 2010 by Jim Mountain just out of Wapiti. I don't recall his name.

Many years ago an elderly gentleman disappeared above Priest Lake, Idaho while out picking berries with his wife. I was practicing law in that area during that time. Chris Servheen was in charge of the initial bear recovery program for USFWS and was involved in this incident. He did everything to downplay grizzly bear involvement. A friend of mine, using man trailing hounds, located the missing man's bloody underwear and some other clothing but never found the body. While working the area, my friend was bluff charged by a grizzly bear in close proximity to where the man disappeared. The USFWS did not want a determination that a grizzly was involved. If you would like to talk the fellow who witnessed this, send me a PM and I will give you his telephone number and email address. He was disgusted by the handling of this matter by the USFWS. They even tried to blame the guy's 80 year old wife for the disappearance.

Grizzly bears are dangerous and unpredictable animals. That is a fact. They are startled very easily. Their eyesight is bad so if they don't hear or smell you, a situation can escalate rapidly. You can do everything in your power and still be attacked, mauled, injured or killed. You cannot be too aware of your surroundings. This nonsense over bear spray or a gun is just that. Chances are you won't have enough time to pull either when first accosted by a grizzly bear. They are better than nothing, but certainly not fool proof protection from a bear attack. Try shooting bear spray into a stiff westerly wind in Wyoming and see what happens.
Jerry Ruth shot the bear that mauled him after it mangled him first. He killed it when it came back to finish him. Brian Loeper shot the bear after it mauled him. A gun saved their lives but not until after they had been mauled. I don't know that a gun or spray would have made a difference to the fellow on Kitty Creek. Obviously the people camped outside of Cooke City were sleeping when they were attacked.

A few years ago, I was charged by a boar grizzly on a tributary to the North Fork Shoshone. I saw him first and was able to back him down. I could have shot him with my rifle but didn't. I was on a pack trail and he was chewing on a plywood Wilderness Boundary sign. Was this incident my fault too? Or just avoidable? I found out a few years later, purely by accident, that the area I was in is a dumping ground for problem bears. Last year my hunting partner and I had grizzly bears on our deer and elk almost immediately. They come to rifle shots in many areas of NW Wyoming. I am as bear aware as anyone, but I know that I could be mauled or killed when I am hiking and hunting in the backcountry.

I don't mean to dispute what you say. You and I have had our disagreements over the wolf. But your comments seem to suggest that all of this is a coincidence or just the fault of stupid people. That is what the USFWS service would like everyone to believe. They act accordingly with the BS they put out and hope that everyone believes it. Again, you should research all the disinformation USFWS put out on the Kitty Creek incident. The Park County Sheriff's Office had to step in to get the facts out for the people who live and recreate in that area.

The issues that need to be addressed with the grizzly bear attacks involve the following:

1) The recent increase in the number of grizzly bears. 300 went to 600 and now over 1,000 is being suggested now; and

2) Why are the bears coming into closer contact with man. Why are relocations of problem bears way up. You can get the 2010 relocation statistics in Wyoming from Game and Fish. Why are bears being found so close to roads and major areas of human population; and

3) Why is the food source of these bears declining. Production of nuts from the White Bark Pine is down. Many people believe that the decline in the White Bark pIne is the result of the let it burn policies of the USFS and the National Park Service. Declining elk and moose populations leave less for the increasing population of bears to eat. Any chance the wolf introduction has caused some of this.

Suggesting that bear attacks are just coincidence or the result of human error is just not right. Based on my observations, we have a problem that needs to be addressed. Trying to explain it away is not a solution.

 

[mixedbag]

Thanks,that reply was very imformative.Be nice to see some kind of a season for them if their numbers have gone up to over 1000.That seems like an awful lot of grizzlies in a small area

 

[Ben Lamb]

You are jumping to conclusions rather than reading what I wrote.

I said that in those two instances, you cannot simply explain the situation by saying that bears are getting orneryer. Those attacks had clear, identifiable missteps that created a situation in which people and bears suffered. We need to recognize the facts on all bear encounters to learn from them and do things differently. I too have been charged, followed and generally been looked at as an easy meal by Grizz.

Many other instances are just what happens in bear country. Yours, and the others, possibly are unavoidable, but I would wager that the vast number of encounters are avoidable. As grizzly bear populations increase, then the conflict will increase, especially as bears move in to more developed habitat. That's part of the price we pay for living in god's country. I recreate in grizzly country almost every weekend, and work in it quite a bit too.

As for declining food sources, a lot of folks are saying that it's more about climate change, rapid expansion of beetles, and the crash of the yellowstone cutthroat populations that are leading to increased conflicts as grizz seek other food sources. As you know, grizz mortality on ungulates is primarily during the period right after calving or fawning where the young are most vulnerable, so saying that there are fewer ungulates around doesn't really take in to account how or what bears eat, or when they eat it. To say that the Fire policy of the USFS or NPS is the cause doesn't account for the massive die off throughout the Rockies. In fact, from the research I've done and seen, most fires are put out quickly with only a few that get away, or conditions changed quickly on the ground and created larger fires.

Here's an interesting comparison: The Rocky Mountain Front has some of the highest grizzly bear densities in the lower 48, and also has some of the highest elk densities as well (it's the second largest migratory elk herd in NA). Because of habitat connectivity and plentiful food sources, bear conflicts remain relatively low. Most mortality on bears in that area comes from poaching, not self defense. In the 4 years I've worked there, there have only been a handful of defensive situations that required the use of firearms or spray. I don't have a problem if someone kills a bear in self defense, and would agree that pepper spray isn't always the best defense. But people also have a responsibility to learn about the places they will be, and how to act accordingly during their time in occupied grizzly habitats rather than thinking that nothing bad will happen, or that they can just plug lead in to them and call it a day.

And I wouldn't say we disagreed on wolves, just had some slight differences of opinion.

 

[Bambistew]

People want the wilderness experience, but don't want the reality of it. If you go into the woods there is a chance you might die

 

[----]

They're letting the bear be...

http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_aa632744-a81a-11e0-8c3f-001cc4c03286.html

 

[belly-deep]

The fact of the matter is, a hunting season might put a little much-needed fear back in the bears.

 

[mightyhunter]

I don't think I was jumping to conclusions at all. I think you swallowed the BS that the feds put out on the two deaths from last year. They often put out disinformation to down play their culpability in the situation and also to deflect criticism from the way they have handled the grizzly bear. If not for tort immunity, the people involved in the Kitty Creek incident would have been sued. If you work for the federal government, that may be hard to admit. That isn't paranoia, just a fact in my world. Look into it (beyond releases from Chris Servheen) and you may agree with what I stated.

In this area of NW Wyoming, the USFS and the National Park Service have gone with a let it burn policy. YNP is an example of this, also the Crow Creek Fire, Gunbarrel Fire (behind Elephant Head), and the Little Rock Creek Fire in the last few years. All National forest lands and all was a let it burn that destroyed thousands of acres of white bark pine trees. I can see the fire damage from my house on the Little Rock Creek fire. It burned the whole eastern front of the Beartooth plateau from the Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone to Line Creek and even some of the plateau. Just after that fire, the bears starting showing themselves down low here in Clark. Ask Jerry Ruth and he will vouch for that fact.

The declining food source is an interesting point. In NW Wyoming, as opposed to say N.Montana or N. Idaho, berries are not a major food source for these bears. That is because we don't have any to speak of. I believe the bears are more carnivorous down here because of a lack of an alternate food source. No berries isn';t something new.The bears do get into the elk calves soon after they are born. This has always been the case, why now the collapse of the ungulate populations if this has been going on for hundreds of years? I believe it is too many predators for the system to support. The wolves are after the ungulates year around to the tune of at least 20 elk per wolf per year. No food for the sows and cubs and they wander into more populated areas.

You mention the die off of the Yellowstone Cutthroat trout. I was never aware that this was a major food source for the bears. Do you know a study that shows this? The trout don't die after they spawn and I don't believe I have ever seen a bear in Wyoming fishing? I have been told that the cutthroat collapse was caused by a couple of things. One, the silting of the tributary streams and spawning beds because of the let it burn policies in YNP (especially tribs on the East side of Yellowstone Lake). Also, YNP people claim it is the lake trout. I never understand how the lake trout became the culprit when they existed in Yellowstone Lake for decades when the cutthroat populations were booming. They came out of the Shoshone and Lewis Lake stockings that took place many decades ago. I have always wondered if the lake trout was a convenient scapegoat to deflect criticism away from the let it burn policy.

The global warming thing, if true, has sure had some imediate and dire consequences for ungulate populations in this area. Our snowpack is 180% of normal and we have water everywhere this year. I believe Montana and Idaho are also flooded. No drought here for the last 4-5 years. The feed for the last few years is incredible. The ungulates ain't starving to death. Something else is killing them here.

I don't want to scapegoat the grizzly bear. They got the latin name "Ursus Horribilis" for a reason. They really don't coexist well with man. I like the fact that they have survived, where other predators have persihed. I believe they have a place in the system when they stay in the most remote areas of the lower 48. They aren't doing this anymore. The question is why? I just don't think you can blame it all on stupid people and coincidence. Bear numbers, and poor or no management, are the likely culprits.

We agree about bear awareness. There is no subsitute for this. I think we also agree that gun or spray is no substitute for good common sense. The incident in YNP is a tragedy for that family. I really don't think that most tourists in YNP fully understand the danger that is there. That is not the parks fault as they post signs and warn people constantly. Perhaps, hiking and backcountry access needs to be eliminated in YNP all together. It would be a shame, but unless something changes with bear numbers, this may be the new reality.

Thanks for being civil in all the discourse. I like to disagree without being disagreeable. I took a 13 mile hike yesterday in griz country and came away unscathed. I will do another on friday, and hope to return for some more back and forth keyboard battles. Be well.
Mightyhunter

 

[Ben Lamb]

I don't think I was jumping to conclusions at all. I think you swallowed the BS that the feds put out on the two deaths from last year. They often put out disinformation to down play their culpability in the situation and also to deflect criticism from the way they have handled the grizzly bear. If not for tort immunity, the people involved in the Kitty Creek incident would have been sued. If you work for the federal government, that may be hard to admit. That isn't paranoia, just a fact in my world. Look into it (beyond releases from Chris Servheen) and you may agree with what I stated.

I never said that the USFWS wasn't culpable for the problem at Kitty Creek. However, fed bears in the slough creek campground incident were responsible for bringing that bear in closer and habituating it to human presence. No problems existed with that bear or her cubs before this, if I remember correctly.

I've worked with enough USFWS employees and state game agency employees to know how they work, and while they are loathe to admit mistakes (as are most people), they do it when they need too. This is my experience working with (and against) them, so we may just end up agreeing to disagree as I tend to not think the worst of these people. I've also been involved in bear delisting, and bear management issues for the last 8 years. My organization, along with the Wyoming Wildlife Federation, the Idaho Wildlife Federation and the National Wildlife Federation are all intervenors on the side of delisting in the Yellowstone population, by the way. So again, I don't just swallow the BS of the service.

In this area of NW Wyoming, the USFS and the National Park Service have gone with a let it burn policy. YNP is an example of this, also the Crow Creek Fire, Gunbarrel Fire (behind Elephant Head), and the Little Rock Creek Fire in the last few years. All National forest lands and all was a let it burn that destroyed thousands of acres of white bark pine trees. I can see the fire damage from my house on the Little Rock Creek fire. It burned the whole eastern front of the Beartooth plateau from the Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone to Line Creek and even some of the plateau. Just after that fire, the bears starting showing themselves down low here in Clark. Ask Jerry Ruth and he will vouch for that fact.

That country was red and dead for a long time before the Gunbarrell fire came through. I'm not as familiar with the Crow Creek fire, was that one up the Greybull? As for white bark pine and fire, WBP does need fire to regenerate. They evolved under that situation, and unnatural fire suppression might have just as much to do with WBP declines as anything else. I've just not seen any credible science that says letting pine burn is a bad way to manage a species that is fire dependent for regeneration. Animal dispersal happens with every fire for a time, until the habitat recovers. And Clark was built on winter range. So to a great extent, bears, elk and bighorns were there first, and humans are the interlopers.

The declining food source is an interesting point. In NW Wyoming, as opposed to say N.Montana or N. Idaho, berries are not a major food source for these bears. That is because we don't have any to speak of. I believe the bears are more carnivorous down here because of a lack of an alternate food source. No berries isn';t something new.The bears do get into the elk calves soon after they are born. This has always been the case, why now the collapse of the ungulate populations if this has been going on for hundreds of years? I believe it is too many predators for the system to support. The wolves are after the ungulates year around to the tune of at least 20 elk per wolf per year. No food for the sows and cubs and they wander into more populated areas.

The collapse of the ungulate populations in specific areas can be attributed to too many teeth at the table. That includes us. It is also interesting to note that WGFD has been trying to do as much as possible to restore habitat and reduce conifer encroachment on what were or should be aspen stands. This was one of the biggest discussion items when I was working in MT, and with the passage of the WY Wildlife and Natural Resource Trust Account, a lot of great work has been done to rehab habitat and make it productive again (especially in light of unnatural fire suppression for over 70 years by the USFS).

The reality is, with wolves, hunters have less opportunity. It sucks, and it makes it more difficult to manage, but the other side of that is we often times have unrealistic expectations of what an elk herd should be as far as size. In some places, we have too many, in others we have too few - all based not on what the carrying capacity is for elk, but based on social factors like landowner tolerance, or hunter opportunity not wanting to sacrificed.

You mention the die off of the Yellowstone Cutthroat trout. I was never aware that this was a major food source for the bears. Do you know a study that shows this? The trout don't die after they spawn and I don't believe I have ever seen a bear in Wyoming fishing? I have been told that the cutthroat collapse was caused by a couple of things. One, the silting of the tributary streams and spawning beds because of the let it burn policies in YNP (especially tribs on the East side of Yellowstone Lake). Also, YNP people claim it is the lake trout. I never understand how the lake trout became the culprit when they existed in Yellowstone Lake for decades when the cutthroat populations were booming. They came out of the Shoshone and Lewis Lake stockings that took place many decades ago. I have always wondered if the lake trout was a convenient scapegoat to deflect criticism away from the let it burn policy.

I don't have a study on hand that shows, but it's an accepted scientific and anecdotal fact that bears were heavy users of cutthroat out of Yellowstone lake. That run, and the ensuing feeding frenzy, were one of the reasons that fishing bridge was closed down. I'll see if I can track down some documents that show how heavily utilized that food source was for grizz.

YNP is correct that the decline of YCT is based on the illegal introduction of Lake Trout in Yellowstone Lake. The first recorded instance of a lake trout being caught in Ystone lake was in the late 80's. Soon after, the cutthroat runs starting diminishing with the increasing population of lakers.

The global warming thing, if true, has sure had some imediate and dire consequences for ungulate populations in this area. Our snowpack is 180% of normal and we have water everywhere this year. I believe Montana and Idaho are also flooded. No drought here for the last 4-5 years. The feed for the last few years is incredible. The ungulates ain't starving to death. Something else is killing them here.

One years snowpack, even 5 years snowpack to not a climate trend make. The overall average for the last 200 years or so shows a marked increase in global temperatures and increased dramatic weather events. No, the ungulates aren't starving to death, but herd dynamics have shifted since the drought, which did last for over a decade. Drought reduces fecundity in ungulates as they cannot afford to feed the offspring, so they simply do not reproduce, which in turn ages a herd as there are no replacement animals. Now, it's not simply drought, but during that time, we saw significant habitat changes (confer encroachment), increased predator numbers (for all species) and no reduction in hunter opportunity. All of that looks like a crash from the rear view mirror.

I don't want to scapegoat the grizzly bear. They got the latin name "Ursus Horribilis" for a reason. They really don't coexist well with man. I like the fact that they have survived, where other predators have persihed. I believe they have a place in the system when they stay in the most remote areas of the lower 48. They aren't doing this anymore. The question is why? I just don't think you can blame it all on stupid people and coincidence. Bear numbers, and poor or no management, are the likely culprits.

The great bear was named Ursos Arctos Horriblus because they were named by people who decided it was a good name. Given the encounters of Lewis and Clark, sure they earned it. But at the same time, I don't think a latin name of a species is anything other than an anthropomorphic idea placed on a species. They're moving out in to former territory to be sure because the rest is full up, and they need to be delisted. I'd say their management has been pretty good if we can take a species that was about to go extinct and within 40 years get them too a point where we're talking about too many of them. Management under the ESA is about recovering species, not protecting people even though mechanisms exist to manage problem animals. As for bears staying in the most remote areas of the lower 48, technically they are, if you base it off of human habitation of those areas . I joke, but I've never seen a bear that can read a map and know that he's not supposed to cross X line.

Mighty, it's always a pleasure discussing these issues with you. You are always welcome in my camp! Have a good hike, and keep that .41 close.