Alberta's decision to destroy mother grizzly who killed hunter called 'obscene'

James Stevenson, THE CANADIAN PRESS

CALGARY - Environmentalists are unhappy with Alberta wildlife officials for tracking down and destroying a grizzly sow with two cubs months after she killed a hunter.

The female bear was captured earlier this week near Sundre in the same area of west-central Alberta where Calgary hunter Don Peters, 51, was fatally mauled last November.

The female bear was destroyed Thursday after DNA evidence connected her to his death.

Jim Pissot, director of Defenders of Wildlife Canada, said the province had no right to go after the bear unless there was "compelling evidence" that the animal had a habit of being malicious and predatory.

"There is no evidence from what was reported that there was anything unseemly in the bear's behaviour," Pissot said Friday from Canmore, Alta.

Pissot said it looked like the bear was simply acting on a protective instinct when she attacked Peters last fall. There was a fresh kill in the area and she had two young cubs with her as he moved through the forest.

"For (the province) to continue to pursue the bear after emerging from the den in the winter, to capture a female and kill her, and to leave her two cubs likely to their own deaths, to me needs a lot of explanation."

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development said the female bear "might present a hazard for the public" and it was necessary to destroy her from a public safety standpoint.

Wildlife investigators on the scene last November "had no doubt that this bear did target the individual," department spokesman Dave Ealey said from Edmonton.

He also said there was no sign of a fresh kill in the area that the bear was protecting.

"I don't want people to think we are cavalier about this. This is a significant loss to the bear population - we understand that."

The plan is to return the two cubs to the wild.

"Our plan is to release them, but the decision has not yet been made on how or where because we need to be able to find the right location," Ealey said.

The department expects the two cubs to survive because they're more than a year old.

"We have got some evidence from other orphan situations where the female has died, (that) they're able to take care of themselves," Ealey said.

But Pissot said that the cubs face a real danger from more mature - and hungry - male grizzlies at this time of year.

"In this part of Alberta, bears stay with mom three and sometimes four years to learn what they need to be grizzly bears," he said.

"And so if you cut that education to 20 to 30 per cent of what it normally is, you probably reduce the likelihood of those bears surviving by the same amount."

Alberta is still trying to assess how many grizzlies prowl its forests. The province shut down its annual grizzly hunt for three years starting in 2006 to begin an elaborate DNA count of its remaining bears, but no decision has yet been made on whether to extend the ban.

Environmental groups have long been critical of the province's refusal to place the bear under protective status or protect its habitat.

Peters disappeared last fall after he went hunting big game in a heavily wooded area near Sundre. His body was found after an intensive, three-day search. An autopsy confirmed he had been mauled to death by a bear.

© The Canadian Press, 2008

You go into the deep dark woods with big brown bears and you takes yer chances y'all! A bear is gonna do what a bear is gonna do THAT is not a variable.

Wildlife officials killed a rogue bear. Plain and simple. If the tree huggers want to make an isse of this let them march proudly in the habitat of "endangered and harmless" bears. I , for one, would like to see the bears well fed off idiots who place human life below that of animals. Circle of life? Bears eat idiot tree huggers, bears leave others alone. There will be a balance.

If he was mauled to death by a sow with cubs, no response should have been taken. If he had been eaten by a bear accustomed to human presence, that would be a different story.

Isn't that why we call it 'dangerous game"? Should we go out and kill all the animals that could potentially harm people?

Domesticated Dogs probably kill more people every year than Bears worldwide.....seems the bears are in short supply or slacking in their predatory ways.

I agree with Slug, it was possibly an "overreaction" triggered by the presence of the cubs and not real predating on humans.

I am not a bear specialist but maybe they could have killed her once the cubs were able to live on their own?

Nature is dangerous, plain and simple. And it's good that it's that way. If you don't like that, better stay home.

I believe the deciding factor, cubs or no cubs, was it appears to have been a predatory attack, and she fed off the deceased person. I also believe that the policy is pretty clear, if it looks to have been predatory and it fed on the person, it is killed. While I agree it is an accepted risk going into bear country, it is far from acceptable to leave a dangerous predatory bear in an area used by alot of tourist's and campers in the summer.

This is not an isolated back country area, alot of people travel and camp in this area, so it is better to kill the bear than risk it eating someone's kids later on.

The cubs will either make it or they won't, thats the reality of it.

I guess they could have let her go and see if she came down to dine on some of those "homeless" people, hanging out at the Mountainaire Lodge. That might get the attention of some of these people with Social consciences.
I didn't realize they were still in pursuit of this bear, until I was up at the Ya Ha, just over a week ago and chatted with some ladies up there, trail riding .. Sustainable Resources still had the area taped off and a trap set, I was told.
Grizz

Seems foolish, more than likely she was defending her kill.Pretty funny when you consider we let murderers out of prision everyday.I enjoy bear hunting but firmly believe when in their domain you take your chances.Always sets me off when a bear dies defending it self or it's cubs

Two grizzlies have been sighted in this area in the last week. The first bear was seen March 30 and it was about a 6-1/2' bear.
The second was seen Monday April 7 and it was estimated to be a 4 year old.

As far as the story about killing the sow bear, I am of the opinion that I would have preferred that F&W could have monitored her movements and left her alone, but since they chose to kill her, the evidence Re: the death of Peters must have been pretty damning.

I certainly don't think they would have killed her unless they believed she was a threat to repeat aggressive behavior.

Too bad really.

maybe they should bring in doctor phil he could straighten out her anti scocial behavior or maybe she could stay with some of you people that think they shouldn't kill her bottom line she won't do it again

The only thing better they could have done was to sell her to the highest bidder who wanted to shoot a man killer. At least that way they could have made some money off her.

An eye for an eye.If a family member of mine was killed and partially devoured by this bear I ampretty sure I would be relieved hearing of its demise.It is too bad about the cubs.

As long as people and bears have existed they have made a point of killing and eating each other.
If a bear were to kill me some day, I would hope that people would let the bear be.

As was stated earlier, the bear fed on his remains and chances are the cubs did too. She taught them a bad thing by attacking a human, they should have been destroyed right along with her. Hopefully they (cubs) won't pick that bad habit up.

They absolutely did the right thing to kill the sow. I can say with confidence that that sow if presented with another human near her cubs will kill again. And further, I think that her cubs are also imprinted to kill if they got near the remains. I have talked to many ranchers in B.C. while there hunting black bear. They tell me that they will shoot and bury any griz that is hanging around their ranch especially a sow with cubs. I don't agree with that but as a matter of practicality they cannot be with a rifle at hand all day looking over their shoulder when doing chores. And even more so with women ranchers. I would guess that all the bleeding hearts have never seen a bear up close and personal in the bush.

I get it. People are in BEAR country crying that there are bears there? And these animals are aggressive? Yeah...they're BEARS! That's what they do sometimes act in an aggressive manner. I would say us hunting is acting in an aggressive manner too. The thrill of bear hunting just wouldn't be bear hunting if it wasn't dangerous. Just like the thrill of most anything would be lost if you take that one or two key elements away from it that separates it out as unique.

Just my $0.02

I don't think anyone is crying out that there are bears there or calling for the demise of all grizzly's that are in the area. Anyone that heads to the mountains knows they are there.

In this case I can say the evidence shows she delibratley stalked and killed a hunter, who was not hunting bears(no season in Alta right now), and she fed on the remains. Not a bite or two, but extensivley fed on him. There was also no evidence at the time there were cubs with her or that they fed on the remains.

That means she had to be put down, those that say that is the way it is when in bear country, well lets see you come and camp with your family there, and when it eats your kids we can let it live for another day!
It is easy to say that from afar off, when you live in an area without the chance of maneaters coming into your yard after your family.
It is of course different when you live, work and even like to camp in these areas.

Bears should be given the spaces they need to exist, I rather like them being there, seeing them, and it makes me feel alive to have to pay attention when in bear country. But letting a confirmed maneater live in a populated or high use area cannot be justified just because a few think it is natures way to get eaten by them.

The cubs have a good chance, they were moved into the back country, a moose carcass or two was flown in for them, and nature will decide if they make it. That is better than sticking them in a little fenced in pen so tourist's can get pictures and say they saw a bear. This has been the way for a long time, people have always been part of the picture. The bears are still there, as are the people. What we have to figure out is how to manage the pressure's put on the habitat and wildlife so both can continue to be in the picture.

I cannot imagine the day without wild places and big bears, but have come to see it could happen if we are not careful.

What about relocation?

From what I understand this bear was already relocated and had a rap sheet as long as your arm. In the bear world it was a bad dude.

quote:

Originally posted by PoppaW:
From what I understand this bear was already relocated and had a rap sheet as long as your arm. In the bear world it was a bad dude.

I live and hunt in the area, and this is the first time I've heard this. I guess the basic question behind this argument is wether you believe the bears are as threatened as some people claim. On another forum, the manager of the Mountainaire Lodge, les than five miles from the scene of the killing, claimed they had seen close to a dozen Grizzlies around the lodge,over the last year. There are a number of tourist facilities, including a YMCA camp, in the immediate area and the reasoning was probaly that it would be hazzardous to have a potentially man killing bear, so close to so many people.
Grizz

On the drive home from work today we spotted tracks in the snow, in the ditch, crossing the road we were on. There's obviously no grizzly hunt here now but even so I won't disclose the exact location.

I immediately knew they were made by a bear and we stopped and checked them out. It was a grizzly track, I would guess a bear in the 6-1/2 to 7' range, judging by the size of the tracks. It was impossible to get a definite size due to the snow condition.

The bear had wandered back and forth across the road in half a dozen spots, so we looked at lots of tracks. I got pics of a few.

Made my day.

quote:

Originally posted by Macifej:
You go into the deep dark woods with big brown bears and you takes yer chances y'all! A bear is gonna do what a bear is gonna do THAT is not a variable.

....

Mac;; You need the Shark Fin Death Star for dem bears ....

quote:

Originally posted by Macifej:
You go into the deep dark woods with big brown bears and you takes yer chances y'all! A bear is gonna do what a bear is gonna do THAT is not a variable.

I saw, on last nights news, a shark killed a guy on a Kalifornia beach. I think I'd rather worry, or not worry, about Grizzly bears.
Grizz

These are the grizzly tracks we saw Apr 25 on the way home from work. The knife in the pic is 6'1/4" long and my buddies hand is about 6-1/2" wide the way he's holding it. We're pretty much in agreement that's it's a 6-1/2' to 7' bear.
Just a young bear.
F&W had a run-in with about a 4 year old grizzly, only a few miles away from where these pics were taken, a couple of weeks ago, so likely dealing with the same young bear. I hope like heck he clears out of the area before he gets into trouble...

BTW...I'm all for putting the bear down....but why not sell a few "special" tags for some hunters that would like to get in on a "man-killer" hunt. I'm sure it would raise some money (maybe donate the money to the victims family) and give some guys a thrilling hunt at the same time.