Shockey Speaks Out: Yukon Grizzly Attack

Status
Not open for further replies.
What an arrogant post. So full of BS it's staggering. I never quoted Shockey using the word cull....his words are " a plague of grizzly bears". Fact is, there are very few fatal bear attacks that would warrant the hint of a re-instatement of the grizzly bear, and I will call it what it is, a "trophy hunt". Shockey promotes himself as a trophy guide. His hunting shows are all about trophy hunting, not meat or sustenance hunting.
Calling me a hugger? Seriously? You don't even know me. I have been involved, as a past board member and member of the Calgary Fish and Game Association on many habitat restoration projects. I've donated plenty of money to salmon related causes in this province, and still do. I not longer hunt, but I do support hunting. I've hunted elk, moose, whitetail and mule deer, pheasants, ducks and geese for many of my sixty one years. Seems to me you're the one sitting behind your keyboard acting like the little warrior.
I feel no need to answer your question of shutting down the entire coast to fishing, because that's not a thought I even entertain. Not sure where that is relevant in this thread, unless perhaps you feel that anyone with an opinion that doesn't match yours must make them an anti-hunting, anti-fishing person. Get real. Same goes for PR representation. I have not chimed on that because my opinion is irrelevant to any of this conversation.
Of course I eat chicken, pork, beef and whatever. I also eat venison, elk, moose and whatever other game. Your point? I've always told people I felt wild game was much better than domestic meat. Still feel that way. But, then again, I support hunting, just not the justification of grizzly hunting, because I know a lot of the meat is wasted. Also because the number of grizzly attacks on humans doesn't warrant a need to reduce their numbers. The bears also are not decimating wildlife stocks. The only time I have ever favoured a "cull" was the reduction of the northern wolf population, as they had a direct impact on wildlife numbers.
Finally, yes, I have had grizzly meat. Not a personal favorite, but that's subjective. Not everyone likes everything. Some like to eat liver while others don't. No relevance to this topic.
I agree, it’s the same general argument made when a Great White Shark attacks a surfer or swimmer. We kill them for doing exactly what nature programmes them to do, hunt eat and mate! That’s it, they’re on constant lookout for food, nonstop. It’s the only way they survive. I can’t help but see dollar signs when hunting guides and outfitters talk about controlling numbers of bears in remote areas. Um, why are we trying to kill grizzly in REMOTE areas. That’s their home, we’re intruders not them. If a bear becomes a problem bear it’s relocated, if it persists or returns it’s then destroyed. That one bear, not 20 or 30 other non threatening bears. That one bear. I think outfitters attitudes might change if bears numbers were reduced by a government run cull, no profiteering, no guides making money, just dead bears. That attitude brought great whites to the brink because they’re incredibly dangerous and occasionally attack people. People thought the only good shark is a dead shark. Then we realize that 1 live great white was worth 10 million times more than 1 dead one. Because of tourism. Great whites are protected, and although rare, they aren’t remote monsters, they’re frequent visitors to some of the most populated beach areas on earth, and largely without incident. Same as grizzly bears. Largely without incident. You don’t kill grizzlies because you might run into one way out in the back country. That’s exactly where you should run into one. They’re the largest land carnivore on earth. They’re kings of their domain. We’re visitors. We have to be extra careful when they’re around. Ever see a sign “Be careful you’re in Bear Country”. Wonder why they post signs like that? To avoid liability? No, because when you’re in bear country you need to always be alert and act accordingly.
 
I'm with Jackal and Nog, so many on here are anti science based management of our wildlife, but professional facebook, google scientists who would manage all by their misguided emotions. If your emotions worked for fishing as they do with "trophy" hunting then we would not have or need this site. The SRKW need the salmon, the gbears populations are increasing. You cry over the worlds most scientific management of BC's gbear, call people names, ones who have done and forgot more than you will ever know about worldwide wildlife management, make accusations, and force your ideas of what to do with a carcass on others???? Glad none of you try for the largest oldest fish, your a "trophy" fisher or as Jackal states a little hypocritical. Lets manage all the planets renewable resources based on science be it a fish, animal or tree and unite as one user group against those who want us golfing. Shame on you all, and all this started from a horrific maybe avoidable tragedy.

HM

Agree 100%. Science actually shows that when the hunt was opened we could of doubled our harvest rate of Grizzly Bears and it would of still been sustainable. That's a 2016 government funded study. Yet calls to look at the SRKW science etc on here are everywhere yet in this case due to it being a Grizzly Bear it is ignored...if you're one of the people doing that you are no better than the ENGO's ignoring the science on the killer whales and rec fishing...
 
I think most of the people on here have a problem with the wording and some of the quotes than an actual grizzly bear harvest. I think all predators should be scientifically managed and harvested. NRKW, Humpacks,seals Grizzly bears ect...

Or maybe we should just kill off all the predators like england and then we would have to deal with these problems....Having to cull 350,000 deer a year

https://www.countryfile.com/wildlife/deer-culling-in-britain-facts-and-statistics/


Gotta love that ENGO comment at the end, Just need to make more fencing lol
 
Last edited:
I want to ask you one thing. If Jims concern in this matter is purely based on his concerns for human safety and the proper balance of bear populations then why in all his ranting did he not mention the ban on Grizzly bear hunting in Alberta, why did he only mention the jurisdictions in which he holds hunting rights to, why only mention jurisdictions in which he can gain more tags in. Personly I think he's pissed he lossed so much revenue from these bans and this was his soap box to stand on and rant about it.

Just my opinion not that it matters any... So Much.
Yes, I agree. Alberta has had more grizzly fatalities thanB.C and the Yukon combined since 1970. I guess it does matter where you are a stakeholder.
 
I can at least understand why a few here are pro grizz hunt. I don’t agree with most points but see there is an argument.

What I don’t understand is what this has to do with a random attack? It’s November in a remote area and the bear is going through hyperphagia. There’s no problem with the system based off this attack. It’s a tragedy but Shockey’s rant missed the mark. Most of my friends who shared it haven’t even seen a grizzly in the wild and have no idea what they’re talking about.
 
I'll agree I don't think you can say see what happens when you close the hunt etc (in terms of Bella Bella attacks and BC ones, this was in Yukon) as they wouldn't over one year suddenly not be afraid, over longer periods of time though it will certainly have an effect of that nature though.
 
Most people would be shocked at how many bear viewing companies are in close quarters with grizzly on a daily basis with no issues. Go where they haven’t been hunted in years and they aren’t more aggressive towards humans.

It’s ironic that a lot of the same guys getting mad at engos for using emotional justification are the same ones trying to use a fear based pro grizz hunt approach.
 
Last edited:
I can at least understand why a few here are pro grizz hunt. I don’t agree with most points but see there is an argument.

What I don’t understand is what this has to do with a random attack? It’s November in a remote area and the bear is going through hyperphagia. There’s no problem with the system based off this attack. It’s a tragedy but Shockey’s rant missed the mark. Most of my friends who shared it haven’t even seen a grizzly in the wild and have no idea what they’re talking about.

Excellent post. Good on you.
 
Last edited:
With the number of wildfires over the last years ,the food for the predators is scarce.The displaced predators are hungry and encounters with the griz may not be what it once was.
 
Most people would be shocked at how many bear viewing companies are in close quarters with grizzly on a daily basis with no issues. Go where they haven’t been hunted in years and they aren’t more aggressive towards humans.

Tell that to the husband whose wife we had to scrape up after their encounter in a National Park - you know - where hunting hasn't been allowed like basically forever...

Speaking of not having seen a grizzly in the wild, I would hazard a guess that most critics here haven't either.
How many have actually seen a grizzly in the wild at close range?
How many have been stalked?
How many have had to clean up the mess after a grizzly attack on a human?
How many have had to kill a grizzly?

I can truthfully answer yes to each of those questions, some multiple times.
Shockey is in that same boat.
And again, he was writing from a very emotional position, something I believe many of us might be inclined to do if it were your own friends and neighbors involved.

Something most here likely do not realize is that it makes literally zero difference to Jim’s bottom line if the Grizzly hunt was closed in the Yukon too. He doesn’t make the vast majority of his money off his guiding operations anymore and hasn’t in a long time. To a guy in his position such considerations are damn small scale, and certainly not the driving factor for what he said. MUCH more so it is his very personal connection to the Yukon and these particular people that drove his sorrow, and subsequent anger.

Again, I do not blame him one whit in that.

Nog
 
Just curious If the trapper decided to kill all the grizzly bears in say a 2 mile radius around his house or trap line would you be okay with that?

Nonsensical question.
Grizzlies have a huge range.
At any given point, they could be within your theoretical 2 miles, or 150 miles in the other direction.
Pointless.

What I would be OK with is proper scientific management that includes hunting as a management tool.

Nog
 
Nonsensical question.
Grizzlies have a huge range.
At any given point, they could be within your theoretical 2 miles, or 150 miles in the other direction.
Pointless.

What I would be OK with is proper scientific management that includes hunting as a management tool.

Nog

It was a bit of a nonsensical question that why i deleted it but I see you must of been replying as I did that.

I really just wanted to see what you thought a solution would be. I get it now, you guys want to hunt a sensible number that would effectively protect the human population while still allowing the grizzly bear population to breed and sustain its own population.

So you arnt necessarily talking about completely eliminating the hazard to humans but just managing it better. 1 death every 5-10 years is to much? we want to thin the grizzly bear population to get those human deaths down to what? 1 in 50 years?

Or do you want to change the laws so someone protecting there family and livelihood can more easy kill a nuance bear as well?
 
Tell that to the husband whose wife we had to scrape up after their encounter in a National Park - you know - where hunting hasn't been allowed like basically forever...

Speaking of not having seen a grizzly in the wild, I would hazard a guess that most critics here haven't either.
How many have actually seen a grizzly in the wild at close range?
How many have been stalked?
How many have had to clean up the mess after a grizzly attack on a human?
How many have had to kill a grizzly?

I can truthfully answer yes to each of those questions, some multiple times.
Shockey is in that same boat.
And again, he was writing from a very emotional position, something I believe many of us might be inclined to do if it were your own friends and neighbors involved.

Something most here likely do not realize is that it makes literally zero difference to Jim’s bottom line if the Grizzly hunt was closed in the Yukon too. He doesn’t make the vast majority of his money off his guiding operations anymore and hasn’t in a long time. To a guy in his position such considerations are damn small scale, and certainly not the driving factor for what he said. MUCH more so it is his very personal connection to the Yukon and these particular people that drove his sorrow, and subsequent anger.

Again, I do not blame him one whit in that.

Nog

Yes, grizzlies do attack, it’s tragic when they do and it will still happen whether there is a hunt or not. It doesn’t mean people need to live in fear and blast a grizz that looks at them. Hell we should all be more fearful of hoping in the car every day if we are going to look at it logically.
 
Last edited:
Up until last year, hunting grizzlies in B.C.was a management tool used. It's still part of the Yukon's management strategy. Originally, the call in B.C. was to end the "trophy hunt". There was still consideration of a meat hunt. But data collected from the compulsory reporting of a grizzly kill showed that only 13% had harvested the meat, as there was no expectations of a hunter to harvest the usable meat of a grizzly bear. It was also a campaign promise of Christie Clark to end the grizzly hunt in the Great Bear Rainforest. As time goes on, if there is to be a limited hunt of grizzlies, it won't be through the "trophy permit" system. I'm sure it would be done requiring the harvest of all usable meat, which I have no issue with at all. I can't say the same for a "rug" hunt.
There is nothing to suggest that hunting reduced the number of fatal grizzly attacks anywhere in Canada, since it is such a rare occurrence, only nineteen fatal grizzly attacks in all of Canada since 1970. Of those fatalities, at least fourteen grizzlies were killed. In the same period of time, there have been thirty fatal black bear attacks in Canada with at least nineteen of those bears killed. Of the grizzly fatalities, three were confirmed as predatory attacks. The remainder included sow/cub encounters, emaciated bear, startling a bear, dressing game, humanized bears i.e. National Parks or vicinity relocated bears, bear on a kill, and one fatality in 1970, was a biologist approaching a sedated bear while attempting to relocate it in Banff Park.
I take Shockey's remarks as strictly emotional and lacking scientific foundation. The Yukon has a grizzly population of approx. 6000 - 7000 grizzlies, spread throughout the entire territory. They have also had the fewest fatalities. They also have an implemented grizzly bear hunt. No evidence of a "plague"
Sadly though, this thread has turned into something other than a factually based discussion. Seems if you are not on the side of the grizzly hunt, then one must be a "leaf licker", "keyboard warrior sipping lattes", "hypocrite", "uneducated", "someone who has done nothing for habitat restoration", "someone who voted for PR representation", "their cheerleader" yada yada yada.
Speaking of not having seen a grizzly in the wild, I would hazard a guess that most critics here haven't either.
How many have actually seen a grizzly in the wild at close range?
How many have been stalked?
How many have had to clean up the mess after a grizzly attack on a human?
How many have had to kill a grizzly?


Nog

Yes, I've seen probably over two dozen grizzlies in the wild, now mind you, have a half dozen were in Butte Inlet area feeding on salmon, the rest were in the back country. The closet other than feeding on salmon bears is about 70 yards. Can't say for sure if I was ever stalked, I doubt it, but I have fly fished many remote high country trout lakes, Barnaby Ridge lakes (East Scarpe, South Fork and Rainy Ridge) Also in that area fished the South Castle River and Beavermines Lake. This area is south west of Pincher Creek AB.Most grizzly sightings I've had were in this area. I might add, this area has had two of the fatal grizzly encounters. I also fished for over a dozen years at a walk in lake called Wall lake, a hike through the Akimina Pass on the west border of Waterton Lakes national Park. Wall Lake is where I had my closest encounter, as a grizzly appeared along the shoreline we were fishing. We were down wind, kept very quiet and gladly, after about five minutes, the bear turned the other direction and walked down the shoreline. Never had to clean up a mess or kill a grizzly, but I will say, on any elk, moose of high country mulie hunt, I was prepared to kill a bear if necessary. I've always known the risk of traveling in bear country and accept it. I have had to shoot a problem black bear however.

This isn't about who is right and who is wrong, it just shouldn't be a call to action because of a very tragic event. Knowing the circumstances of this attack would help, far to early to jump the gun though.
 
I spent a few summers in the 90s working at and around mica townsite. That’s 80 miles from revelstoke into the mountains. One of my buddies also worked there, he was the garbage man and I drove the truck. This was before “bear proof “ containers. Anybody familiar with the area knows a lotta bears around there. Like **** loads. Most I counted at one time was 13 and least I counted was 5 so you pick your average. I’ll go low and say 5 bears each trip to the dump. Not blacks either. These are all Grizz. So 4 trips a month, 5 bears a trip (probably more in the trees) that’s 20 bears a month minimum and over the 6 months around 120 sighted bears. Don’t know how many were in the woods. Maybe none, maybe a “plague” of them. I can say with all honesty I was puckered up every trip because we had to hand bomb the bags out of the truck and a grizzly bear in person Is huge let alone 5 or 6 of them. BUT: knowing a bit about bears having lived around them for most of my life, one of us always always always, covered the other guy with the rifle. All those bears and all those trips and I can tell you for certain I was charged exactly never and I was attacked exactly never and was bothered by them exactly never. Not saying it doesn’t happen because it clearly does. Just not often. Your much more likely to be attacked and injured by an urban deer than any bear, black or grizz. I am saying, these bears were keyed to the sound of the garbage truck and showed up like we were ringing dinner bells but never approached us closer than what their comfort level was and it was much further away than 80 feet. They’d be waiting when we showed up but would split for the tree line or behind dirt piles or wherever they could hide when one of us got out of the truck. Over a hundred man/bear interactions and no problems. Black bears though? I lived at a place where there was a bear wallow, and I got a few stories about them too and they’re much more sketchy than a grizz.
 
Last edited:
This thread shows the biggest problem that outdoors people face is each other. We may or may not agree with what Jim has said but he has helped and supported outdoors people and our lifestyles. We are attached by the anti hunting and anti fishing and ourselves. I think we would all agree that if any animal can sustain a legal harvest that insures their continued success and population growth or stability then it should be allowed. I personally don't trophy hunt but if that is what someone else chooses to do that should be exceptable by our community of outdoors men and women. If someone wants to fish steel head as a catch and release fishery which i personally dont do then that should be exceptable also. Picking what is and what isnt exceptable puts us all on a slippery slope leading to the lose of our fishing and hunting lifestyle. Maybe you dont see the relationship between grizzle bears and steelhead or that there is a mortality rate for catch and release but putting your morals above someone else's is wrong.
 
Yes, grizzlies do attack, it’s tragic when they do and it will still happen whether there is a hunt or not. It doesn’t mean people need to live in fear and blast a grizz that looks at them. Hell we should all be more fearful of hoping in the car every day if we are going to look at it logically.

The vast majority aren’t arguing to shoot every grizzly or live in fear. They’re arguing predator populations need to be controlled and the best option for that is a sustainable hunt. Key word being sustainable and the science shows that is easily possible with grizzly bears at rates even higher than we were.
 
So for all you guys who hunt especially Mister 57 etc, what is the definition of a trophy hunt
 
So for all you guys who hunt especially Mister 57 etc, what is the definition of a trophy hunt
Any hunt where there is an additional "trophy fee" attached. In the case of grizzly bears, when there were no regulations that would put any expectation of the harvest of usable meat as well, which was the case in B.C. Besides Jackel, the province designated the term "trophy". Done with semantics. Put facts up, or ignore my posts.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top