Guide in the wrong????

mtmiller

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 7, 2001
Messages
11,731
Location
Montana
I was looking for something else, but ran across this. I know folks like Schmalt's are terrified of bears and wolves ;) but do we turn outfitters into their parents (MBO) if they take them into bear areas?

No Charges Filed in Grizzly Shooting

State and federal investigators have decided not to file charges against a nonresident hunter who shot a charging grizzly Oct 27, 2005, in the Scapegoat Wilderness along the Rocky Mountain Front.

"There was no criminal activity,"" says game warden Tom Flowers, of Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks.

The incident took place off Halfmoon Creek, which runs into Straight Creek south of Benchmark west of Augusta. A group of two nonresident hunters were with a guide searching for deer and elk. They told investigators they knew there was bear activity in the area, as well.

"The bear dying was avoidable," Flowers says. "The guide used poor judgment by taking the hunters into an area with known bear activity, but there was no criminal intent."

The group surprised a grizzly, which charged and was shot at 15 paces by one of the hunters with a .300 Weatherby magnum.

The group immediately contacted authorities and took Flowers to the bear carcass the next day.

In addition to FWP's investigation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also looked at the incident because grizzly bears are a federally protected species under the Endangered Species Act. Neither agency will file criminal charges, Flowers says.

"We will forward an incident report to the Montana Board of Outfitters," Flowers says, "regarding the guide's activities."
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
FWP Public Information Center 406-444-2535
http://fwp.mt.gov/news/article_4180.aspx

Not sure why a guide should not be able to take clients into bear country?? What do you guys think? Not a big fan of the MBO, but are they supposed to disciple outfitters working in griz country?
 
A guy has EVERY RIGHT TO HUNT IN BEAR COUNTRY as long as it is an open unit. He also has the right to protect himself. I would have done the same thing, and so would everyone else.
 
Miller,

If hunters (guided or unguided) would have stay out of areas with known bear activity, that would cut out a pretty huge chunk of available hunting areas. So I guess I agree with you, if I get your point.
 
Yeh, apparently I was too vague. I don't understand why a FWP warden would state anyone used poor judgement by hunting where griz are known to exist and then state he would inform the Montana Board of Outfitters. What exact are they supposed to do, give him a scolding? :rolleyes:

Maybe these quotes were taken out of context, but it seems rediculous to me. :confused:
 
I was thinking the same thing as most, too me it looked like they were implying that if there are bears in the area they shouldnt be hunting in there.

I can see a movie being made here....
 
All sorts of restrictions on people's behaviour are put in place when there is a "bear incident". Nobody has a "right" to endanger other people who might have to come rescue their sorry asses for their own stupidity. The government frequently protects people from doing stupid things.

For a guide to knowingly take a client into a place where there was a strong possibility of harm to the client or the endangered species obviously points out the bad judgement of the guide and he should have his files reviewed and reports on this incident filed for future customers to be able to see what he has done in the past with clients.

It was a nice touch for the hunters to take Flowers to the death site the next day..... :confused:
 
All sorts of restrictions on people's behaviour are put in place when there is a "bear incident".
What was the bear incident? There was mention of bear activity in the area, but nothing of an incident. There is bear activity in many parts of Montana, what "restrictions" need to be placed in these areas? No access???

For a guide to knowingly take a client into a place where there was a strong possibility of harm to the client...
No mention of this anywhere in the article.

A group of two nonresident hunters were with a guide searching for deer and elk. They told investigators they knew there was bear activity in the area, as well.
The guide apparently made them aware of potential bear encounters and obviously the hunters felt secure enough to still hunt the area. Where is the problem?

Good one with the "flowers" comment. :D
 
"We will forward an incident report to the Montana Board of Outfitters," Flowers says, "regarding the guide's activities."

This had to have been said just as a "CYA" statement made for the benefit of the feds (USFWS) and bear lovers like Timothy Treadwell and his followers. Obviously the Montana Board of Outfitters won't do anything to the guide, as he did absolutely nothing wrong (at least from what we know of the incident.) It might be a different story if this had happened in their camp and the guide had not followed the proper procedures when camping in grizzly bear country. But they were out hunting deer/elk and if a grizzly bear happens to be in the same area what are they supposed to do...hunt where there is no game? :confused:
 
You were the one that posted the lousy, vague article that is poorly written and way too edited. I assume "activity" is the same as "incident". I do not think that if a bear craps in the woods, that becomes "activity". But, if a bear raids a camp, or eats some welfare rancher's sheep, then you have "bear activity".

On the Rogue River, there is lots of bear "activity", and as such, floaters and fishermen are restricted in their actions. Not a big deal, and people just have to take off their cowboy hats and comply with the Ranger's decrees. YNP is another example of a place with bear "activity" that results in restrictions on people's activity.

As for my "strong possibility" comment, you edited it WAY too short, significantly changing the meaning of the statement. If you don't do your creative editing, the statement is brilliant. In hindsight, it was obvious that harm came to either the hunters or the bear, therfore, there must have been a "possibility", and the fact that it happened, construes it was "strong".

S'pose they had a Memorial service?
 
Sorry I posted a "lousy, vague article". I thought it was interesting, so passed it along.

"activity" = "incident" ???

We will just have to agree to disagree if hunting or outfitting in grizzley county is "poor judgement".
 
I didn't assume bears living in the get elevated to "activity". I assume bears eating people are called "activity".

Where is Grizzley County? Are there deer or Elk there?
 
Haven't heard of anybody eaten lately up here, so I don't think that is what Flowers was referring to. ;)
 
I wonder what "known bear activity" means. Sounds like a griz was was killed and there's nobody else to point fingers at.
 
That or they heard some growling and thought it might just be MtMiller in the bushes taking a Tom.
 
Greenhorn said:
That or they heard some growling and thought it might just be MtMiller in the bushes taking a Tom.
And wiping his Jose :D
 
Back
Top