(June 19) -- Authorities say a grizzly bear that killed a 70-year-old hiker near Yellowstone National Park is still on the loose, and are cautioning residents to beware.

The attack happened Thursday in the same area where researchers had trapped and tranquilized a huge adult male grizzly earlier in the day, in the Shoshone National Forest about six miles east of Yellowstone. Scientists with the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team had put a radio collar on the bear and are now trying to trap it again, then use DNA testing to see if it was indeed responsible for the attack.

Erwin Frank Evert went hiking around 12:45 p.m. in the forest's Kitty Creek area, and when he didn't return, his wife went looking for him and met one of the bear researchers. They went back to the spot where they'd left the bear to wake up after it was tranquilized, and found Evert's body. Details were reported by several news outlets.

Officials have closed off the Kitty Creak area indefinitely. "There have been Forest Service people in the area talking to people who live in those cabins, and at the lodges around there, letting them know what's going on," forest spokeswoman Susan Douglas told reporters on Friday.

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.

The head of the grizzly study team, Chuck Schwartz, said an investigation is being launched into whether researchers followed correct procedures, like posting warning signs about the grizzlies they were studying.

"My heart goes out for the victim and the family involved in this. Nobody would want anything like this to happen," Schwartz, who is based in Bozeman, Mont., told The Associated Press.

The team is made up of state and federal biologists who study the habitats of grizzly bears in U.S. parks. Grizzlies have been on the U.S. government's list of threatened species since last year.

CNN quotes the incident a different way:

quote:

The man, Erwin Frank Evert, was unarmed and fatally wounded when the large adult male grizzly bear attacked him, the sheriff's office said. He was in the forest with his wife, a member of a federal team of researchers studying grizzly bears, authorities said.

I just read on CNN internet where they tracked the Bear by it's radio collar and killed it in the release area. The man and his wife were in the area with a Bear research group. Good shooting.

well the story really grows when the news agencys get ahold of it.
the jungle drums here told me that he did have
bear spray and the 2nd person was a male friend of his from california.
wyo game and fish had released a bear in the area earlier that day.
the guy was a botinist and has a summer cabin in the area,so he was no stranger to the area or the density of bear or the precaution required when hiking in bear country.
this is the story repeated from the 2nd man via the wyo game and fish bear trapper that was on site and and heard it first person.
they were walking up the trail
(kitty crick has heavy to dense cover)
"minding our own buisness" when the bear attacked.
(no cubs were seen)pepper spray was used and when it had no effect, we ran.
my condolences to his family
the behind the scenes evidence shows that several major mistakes led to the fatal mauling
hiking a trail the g&f had just released
a doped bear on (signs were posted)
bear spray was used beyond its effective range
of 30 ft.
they tryed to outrun the bear
the victim instead of playing dead fought the bear during the mauling
the body was decribed to me as unrecognizable
and dismembered, but not fed on.
its not known if the grizzly released was responsible for the mauling

He had written a book on bears, as well as last fall an editorial in the Casper paper, condeming the use of firearms in bear attacks versus pepper spray. I think he was the first to codemn the retired cop at Clark who shot the bear last year.

I don't know why they would have to re catch it to get DNA samples they take blood as part of the research.

More and more interisting stuff comes out.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
I don't know why they would have to re catch it to get DNA samples they take blood as part of the research.

More and more interisting stuff comes out.

My thinking was they intended to swab the bear's teeth for Evert's DNA, thus linking his death to that particular bear. Perhaps they wouldn't even need DNA if they found Evert's clothing stuck between its teeth.

Well stupid is as stupid dose, you go into bear country, you are foolish not to have a firearm with you. Its as simple as that. Right now Black Bear is making a come back in CT. Ok Black Bear are not Grizzlies but they are predators never the less and can be dangerous. I camp out a lot these days, and well I had a bear snopeing around my camp, I keep a very clean, no food around deal. You can bet coin on one thing, a loaded 338 Winchester is always with in easy reach. Because a cell phone at 3 in the morning is not going to do you a bit of good with a bear trying to get in your tent, a 338 works every time its applied, pepper spray well that just pure tree hunger logic.

dna matched the drugged bear

George Semel

You touched on a point that I always have been upset about while watching "documentaries" about bears. No rifle? On your point about black bears increasing in CT- There is a stat out there that says that black bears have killed more people than any other species of bear. I used to hunt blacks in north central Ontario (Nipissing District)for some years and learned of at least 4 different killings of people by blacks. Be very wary of blacks - and be very sure not to come around the corner of a house and surprise one. Attack isd almost certain. Fact. (Surprise for a black seems to lead to attack)

Looks like the guy lost his life because he was CONVINCED the pepper spray would work; and, it didn't work. Being bull headed, he wouldn't dream of carrying a gun as a back up in case his pepper spray wouldn't get the job done.
Pepper spray is in no way a court of last resort; a gun would be my court of last resort.
The gene pool just got better.

Who knows, maybe he was one of those that are so "green" that their logic is that it is better for them to die than for the bear to die. Some of them are like that, like Timmy. If that was his choice, I have no problem with it. You pays your ticket and you takes your chances. Funny that they don't want the bear to die but after the bear kills them, at every opportunity, the bear gets hunted down and killed also. Seems a futile sacrifice to me.

So, did Mr. Know-it-all-bear-expert actually use the pepper spray on the bear and it didn't work?

If that is the case then this is the 3 documented case I know of where it "didn't work" too well or the bear came back and (1) pounded the crap out of the people that initally sprayed it or (2)came back with the intent of pounding the crap out of the people that sprayed it and got a functional demonstration of Bill Rugers design work and full power 44 loads.

I used to guide fishermen into YNP and every time I ran into Ranger Rick he (or she) was armed. I asked one "Would you actually be here if you were not armed?" (He was packing a Ruger Super Redhawk in 454 and had a Springfield M1A1 with a 20 round clip on his horse.) His answer, "F*** no! No way in hell."

The why can't I have the right to defend myself with something that actually works question was finally put to rest with "right to carry" now extended to YNP. Do I pack my 44? You bet ya. I take the bear spray along too, spray in one hand, Ruger in the other.

Also, those bear "studies" done in Alaska showing that pepper spray is more effective than a well placed bullet, I think this guy was one of the researchers. I also question the methodology of those studies and wheather they segregated incidents on streams involving fishermen or looked at "predatory intent" on the part of the bear. Some bear wandering too close to you because it's just curious is a hell of a lot different than one that is driving you off its kill or defending its cubs. Or pissed off as hell at humanity in general!

I carry spray when I'm hunting. If just out and about a handgun and spray. Writing off spray as ineffective is similar to writing off a firearms due to a poorly placed shot. Circumstances decide what I'd grab first.

I am with George Semel - carrying a firearm in bear country should be an absolute (like a parachute -you hope never to need it - but if you do -and don't have it -you'll never need one again) - Some of the posts about pepper spray remind me of that old joke about the warning bulletin issued by a F&G Department to the effect that people should carry pepper spay and use little bells to warn the grizzly - and that analysis of bear scat showed traces of pepper and little bells!

I have done some backpack fishing in YNP and I can tell you it is difficult to concentrate on the task at hand when you are always scanning the "perimeter".
I would always like to have my little Marlin Guide gun. I believe I would better enjoy my fishing.

Family of man killed by bear says warnings removed

CHEYENNE, Wyo. — The daughter of a hiker killed by a grizzly bear shortly after the animal awoke from tranquilizers says researchers may have taken down signs warning passers-by of their work near Yellowstone National Park.

A 430-pound grizzly bear killed Erwin Frank Evert, 70, of Park Ridge, Ill., on June 17. Earlier that day, two members of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, which studies the animals in Yellowstone, had examined the bear after it was caught in a baited snare.

Mara Domingue, of Ventress, La., said her father had seen a sign days before the attack warning people about the research. But the Park County sheriff's deputy who recovered Evert's body reported seeing no signs in the area, Sheriff Scott Steward said.

Domingue said she believes researchers removed the signs as they left, leading her father to believe there was no longer any danger. Except for an area a couple hundred yards off the trail, no other places were marked with warning signs and the trail remained open, she said.

Evert was attacked by the bear not long after it woke from tranquilizers. He was neither armed nor carrying bear spray, the sheriff's office said.

Evert, a botanist, often went hiking in the forest south of the cabin, typically following a trail a mile or two up Kitty Creek before bushwhacking to a ridgetop overlooking the cabin he owned with his wife, Domingue said.

"I've been on every single mountain in that whole drainage with my father. We've encountered bears many, many, many, many, many times," she said. "We've never had any incidents with bears, because none of the bears have been harassed, or baited or snared."

Grizzly team leader Chuck Schwartz, with the U.S. Geological Survey in Bozeman, Mont., declined to comment on the mauling circumstances, saying they will be investigated. Federal wildlife authorities outside the team will conduct the investigation, he said.

Team policy requires grizzly researchers to tape warning signs to trees, Schwartz said.

"We have a printed sign that essentially warns people that there is grizzly bear trapping in the area. That sign basically says the area behind the sign is closed," he said Tuesday.

The signs are marked with the dates during which the area remains closed, he said.

Domingue said signs should have been posted at the trailhead and cabin owners in the area notified.

"Nobody was informed what the heck was going on up there," she said.

The nearby Crossed Sabres Guest Ranch was aware of the work, said Linda McCoy, manager of the dude ranch across U.S. 14-16-20 from the Evert cabin.

"We were notified that they were snaring bears in two areas that they used. They asked us to quit using one of the trails for two weeks, which we did," she said.

The ranch has since resumed pack trips up the trail.

Two days after the attack, trackers following a signal from a radio collar on the grizzly shot the bear from a helicopter. DNA tests confirmed the bear killed was the grizzly that attacked Evert.

McCoy said she has had to field question from people who've booked visits to the dude ranch and heard about the attack.

"It was an accident, and we don't anticipate future problems," she said.

A grizzly who was darted -and now awake a little while later. I always thought (from "documentaries" I watched on TV) that otherwise dangerous animals who had been darted and now came awake had the attitude of someone waking up from a hangover. In plain words -not in a happy mood -and I never understood grizzlies to be a particularly "nice" critter in the first place. The dart surely didn't improve matters. I wish the family luck -although I think it will be a real stretch to claim that the Government is liable because the signs were removed. (How do they prove that the grizzly was "bad" because of the darting - and that he/she wasn't just a grizzly meeting someone close up? (Most of us never think of a grizzly as the local "Welcoming Committee")

You screw with them, they will screw back.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcn0Qqm-u7M

Yes, when someone tells you pepper spray is a good defence they are lying to you.

Pepper spray isn't even a good defence against a superior sized human with superior fighting skills in a fight.

It does help, and it might give you the chance to flee where you wouldn't have had it before. But pepper spray doesn't stop someone.

It's like using a CO2 fire exstinguisher on a fire. Yes it will probably put out the fire, but it offers zero reflash protection.

To mee pepper spray is very similar.

Bullets kill bears, pepper spray might help to save your life. But then again it might not.

No gun or spray, and this guy was very vocal about using spray instead of a firearm. I smell a lawsuit though!

Bear researchers took warning signs
Monday, July 19, 2010 9:58 pm

CHEYENNE — Two researchers who tranquilized and studied a grizzly bear hours before the animal killed a hiker near Yellowstone National Park removed warning signs as they left the site, an investigation has found.

A report released on Monday also says the victim knew the researchers were studying bears less than a mile from his summer cabin and expressed hope that he would meet them while hiking so he could ask them about their work.

Erwin Frank Evert, 70, a botanist from Park Ridge, Ill., went hiking the afternoon of June 17 from the summer cabin that he owned about six miles from Yellowstone’s east gate. The 430-pound bear killed him where the bear, caught in a previously set snare, was studied that morning.

Authorities shot and killed the bear from a helicopter two days later.

The researchers are members of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team. Yellowstone grizzlies are listed as a threatened species, and the team is responsible for monitoring their numbers and health.

The report recommends that the team adopt detailed standards for posting warning signs.

The report drew from interviews with and statements by the two study team researchers, Seth Thompson and Chad Dickinson, and interviews with and statements by others.

Thompson wrote that they took down the warning signs while they left the groggy bear to finish waking up. It was their last day of studying grizzlies in the area, and they hadn’t seen any hikers in the drainage during their three weeks of work, he wrote.

The weather was brisk and snowy, he wrote.

“We also felt that the unfavorable weather conditions would curtail human activity that day,” Thompson wrote.

The researchers left the bear at 12:30 p.m., and Evert began hiking at 12:45 p.m., according to the report.

About 6:15 p.m., Evert’s wife, Yolanda Evert, met Dickinson and Thompson after they had returned to the trailhead, and she told them that Evert was late getting back. Dickinson wrote that he rode a horse back to the trap site and found Evert face-down with significant head injuries.

Dickinson returned quickly to the trailhead.

“I was concerned for my own safety and was very convinced that Mr. Evert was indeed dead,” Dickinson wrote.

The report relayed accounts suggesting that Evert put himself at risk despite being aware of the danger.

Evert had seen the warning signs while hiking yet expressed hope in the days before his death that he could “catch up with” the researchers and talk to them, said the report, drawing from a statement by a forest ranger who had talked to Evert’s wife and daughter.

“They said he had a natural curiosity which was part of his personality as a scientist,” wrote Terry Root, a district ranger for Shoshone National Forest, where Evert was killed.

Evert apparently strayed a half-mile uphill from his usual hiking route to reach the site where he was attacked, according to a map in the report showing Evert’s usual hiking circuit and the location of the research site.

He was not carrying bear spray or a firearm, according to the report.

Evert’s daughter, Mara Domingue, of Ventress, La., did not return a phone message seeking comment.

Study team leader Chuck Schwartz, with the U.S. Geological Survey in Bozeman, Mont., also did not return a phone message seeking comment.