Shockey Speaks Out: Yukon Grizzly Attack

Discussion in 'General Open Forum' started by IronNoggin, Nov 30, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. IronNoggin

    IronNoggin Well-Known Member

    "If a grizzly bear wants to kill you, it doesn't matter how much experience you have. The grizzly bear is going to come very close to killing you," he said. "We're the softest thing out there and we're the easiest thing out there.

    "Their motivation is to kill and eat food and Valérie and Adele, for that bear, were considered for food… Grizzly bears kill human beings because they're hungry. It's really simple."
    CVmike likes this.
  2. Foxsea

    Foxsea Well-Known Member

    So in response to a tragic incident, Shockey states hunters need to kill more grizzlies - SHOCKING!
  3. Islander57

    Islander57 Well-Known Member

    I'm not surprised that Shockey said this. After all, he's strictly a trophy hunter. The balance of nature is very fine at best, and as we endeavour to expand our habitat into grizzly habitat, incidents like this will become more frequent. I used to watch a lot of hunting shows, but not quite as much. The trend in these shows is moving far more into trophy hunting rather than meat hunting. It's certainly sad this lady and her child lost their lives, but that doesn't justify the need to kill more bears in my opinion.
    Foxsea likes this.
  4. CVmike

    CVmike Active Member

    Jim makes many good points and I agree with him fully. I’m sad to say we’re doomed to see more negative encounters here in BC with our new laws. It’s a sad state of affairs when the people who live in remote rural areas can be thrown under the bus by governments who strive to appease the urban masses.
  5. IronNoggin

    IronNoggin Well-Known Member

    The full account form Jim:

    This will be a long one. A really long one.

    Right now I am deeply saddened and very angry.

    We are so sorry for the loss of Valerie and Adele and extend our deepest sympathies to Gjermund Roesholt...Valerie’s partner, Adele’s Father and who is a survivor of this tragedy and to their family, friends and community. You are all in our thoughts and prayers.

    Two days ago, I received a call, asking permission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to use one of our cabins at Einerson Lake, in our Yukon Rogue River Outfitting Territory. If you have followed our Hunting Adventures TV show, you will have seen many episodes filmed at that camp.

    With that phone call, I learned of the horrific tragedy that had just occurred at Einerson Lake, that by now, most of you will have heard about from the Mainstream Media. A grizzly bear, attacked and killed a young mother, Valerie Theoret and her beautiful 10-month old baby girl Adele.

    The deep sadness I will deal with in my own way, with time helping to numb the horror I feel at such an incomprehensible, senseless and preventable loss of life.

    The anger, I will deal with right now, specifically the “preventable” part of this tragic event.

    I had a long post, that I’d written immediately after receiving the phone call, before this all hit the mainstream news outlets, but I decided not to post it. I decided to take a breather, to cool down before I pushed the “Send” button.

    Unfortunately, I have not cooled down.

    I am still livid at this senseless loss of human life in “My House” and on “My Watch.”

    A few years back, you may remember, we aired an episode from this very same Einerson Lake, where one guide had to shoot an kill a grizzly bear as it tried to break into another guide cabin, obviously with the intent to kill and eat the person inside that cabin. The “Rest of the Story” is that my guides shot 17-times, the previous afternoon, around, over and beside that grizzly, trying to haze it away from the camp.

    In spite of the fact that that bear was obviously a threat to humans, my guides did not shoot the bear itself, because they are law-abiding citizens and it would have been a serious violation of the Yukon Wildlife Regulations to kill the bear, without a direct threat to property or life.

    Instead, my guides literally had to wait until the grizzly made its attempt to kill a human, before they could legally kill this problem bear. It is in essence, the “Rules of Engagement” that we are forced, by law, to live with in the wilderness areas of the Yukon and British Columbia. Rules of Engagement, that someone who has never faced a dangerous bear, wrote TO SAVE THE LIFE OF THAT GRIZZLY AND OTHER GRIZZLY BEARS, not to save the lives of the human beings living and working in remote areas.

    After that unfortunate incident at Einerson Lake and many other close calls with the grizzlies in that general area of the Yukon, close encounters, I warned everyone who I could reach, that “We are facing a grizzly bear plague in British Columbia and the Yukon.” And we informed the officials in charge of the highly regulated grizzly bear harvest quotas, that more grizzlies needed to be killed in the wilderness areas, particularly in that “Grizzly Bear Management Zone” that includes Einerson Lake. In fact, I predicted that someone was going to get hurt if something wasn’t done to deal with the grizzly bear plague.

    Now this prediction has come to pass, in the most tragic way.

    Was it preventable? I believe yes, absolutely, but I know I can’t say that, I can only say, yes, probably.

    Even back in August of this year, it is highly likely that I personally saw the bear that killed this young lady and her beautiful baby girl. But due to the regulations, I was not allowed to kill a grizzly bear at Einerson Lake this year. Licensed hunters are allowed to take one grizzly bear, every three years in the Yukon. Since I took an old, nearly toothless grizzly boar, aged by biologists at over 20-years, back in 2016, I could not shoot a grizzly at Eierson Lake when I hunted there this year. If I could have, there is a probability that I would have killed that grizzly bear three months before it killed Valerie and Adele.

    Further to this, in spite of my constant battle to try and have the Grizzly bear quota raised in that remote region, we have only been allowed by law, to harvest from one to three male grizzlies per year, on average, over the 15 or so years that I’ve owned the Rogue River Outfitting Territory. For the record, the Grizzly Bear Management Zone that Einerson Lake is situated in, encompasses over 4000 square kilometres. IF the grizzly quota had been increased, to a level that it must be to prevent tragedies like this from happening, there is a high probability, that one of our Rogue River clients would have killed that grizzly long before it had the opportunity to kill Valerie and Adele.

    Here is the part that really gets me angry. Right now, as I write this, there are people out there, who believe animals have rights and who are celebrating this horrific tragedy. They will say to each other, in their nasty little covens, that Valerie and Adele simply reaped what they sowed. This was a family of trappers, a family of hunters. They deserved what they got.

    I am angered and outraged. So should every sentient human being be.

    These same people will be out tomorrow, raising money to stop hunting around the world and they will lie to do so. They will “personify” wild animals, give them cute names and show out of context photos of suffering animals, and they will tell people that hunting is “inhumane” that hunters are evil. They will tell this to concerned citizens who are not aware of that hunting is in fact the best and only way to manage wildlife populations in many parts of the world. They will not mention that hunters are this world’s greatest stewards of wildlife. The will not talk about the billions of dollars hunters have spent to protect wildlife, to raise wildlife populations here in North America, to historic highs.

    In their dark recesses, they will compose and send death threats to hunters and their families. They will bully and vilify young ladies who follow an outdoor lifestyle. And then in public, they will lie about the populations of grizzly bears. They will say they are “endangered” and they will pull at the heart strings of uninformed, caring people, who mostly live in urban centers far removed from the realities of grizzly bear management and conservation.

    And as they cry…they will reach into these well-intentioned people’s pockets to finance their next anti-hunting project, NOT to actually use the funds to help wildlife populations thrive and increase as hunters have done.

    This sickens me.

    Yesterday, I was called for an interview by our own Canadian network, CTV, asking me questions about this horrible tragedy. I told them about the grizzly bear plague, that there are too many grizzly bears in British Columbia and the Yukon. I told them how we’d warned that someone was going to get hurt or worse in that part of the world. I told them about the onerous “Rules of Engagement” for problem grizzly bear encounters in both British Columbia and the Yukon Territory.

    And when they asked me “Why I thought this grizzly attacked” I told them this grizzly was no different than any grizzly. It attacked because it is an apex predator and apex predators kill anything and everything they consider “prey.” And when you regulate grizzly harvest numbers to the point that they lose their “fear” of human beings, then human beings will absolutely become “prey” to grizzly bears.

    And I told them that this wasn’t a “one off” situation, THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING.
    Peahead, walleyes and Hookin'up like this.
  6. IronNoggin

    IronNoggin Well-Known Member

    When the report on CTV came out yesterday evening, instead of my personal, feet on the ground at Einerson Lake, answers to their questions, they quoted an “Expert”, the “grizzly bear recovery co-ordinator” for the US Fish and Wildlife service, from Missoula, Montana. An expert who “has investigated the last eight fatal grizzly bear attacks in the United States.”

    This gentleman said that it was “important to try to understand why it happened…” “…through careful re-creation of the events.”

    He said…”Was it in poor shape? Was he old? Did he have bad teeth?” And that these things would give information about the “…potential motivation of the bear.”

    He added that grizzly bears “…become stressed while looking for food at this time of the year.”

    Stressed? Motivation? Understand?



    This bear was a GRIZZLY BEAR!

    It killed because it is a predator!


    I’m venting. Senseless and preventable tragedies don’t bring out the best in me.

    Today as I write this, there are politicians in power, who know absolutely, that they have done “wrong” to remain in power, they have purposefully catered to the populist majority urban vote, instead of doing what is right for the minority of people who live in the rural areas of our countries. It’s called “demagoguery” and recently I’ve posted about exactly this on the new Canadian federal gun control regulations about to be enacted.

    In British Columbia, the one common sense method to control the rising and likely out of control grizzly bear population, hunting, was recently banned for 100% political reasons. I believe the official statement said something to the effect that this ban was put in place, because grizzly bear hunting was no longer socially acceptable to the majority of British Columbians. This was doing “wrong” simply to stay in a position of power, and the politicians responsible cannot reasonably deny it.

    These politicians were told there was no biological reason for banning the hunt, the grizzly bear population was stable and even growing. And the politicians were warned that increasing grizzly bear populations, would inevitably result in human\grizzly conflict and tragedy, loss of human life. A senseless waste of human life. And yet, knowing that people in rural areas would die, savaged by grizzly bears, because of their decision, they enacted the law anyway. Enacted the law to remain in their position of power?

    So here is the question that I would really like answered. Who will be accountable when that tragedy happens in British Columbia? Who takes responsibility? Who will say, “Yes, we were warned, but we felt the horror this person or persons (in the case of Valerie and Adele) was simply the cost of doing business…the cost of us staying in power.”

    What government official will stand up and say, “Yes, it was me. I’m the one who decided grizzly bear harvest quotas should remain low, in spite of the fact that I was warned far in advance, by the people who actually live and work in that area, that a tragedy such as has just happened to Valerie and Adele, was going to happen in that area.”

    Will any government employee or elected politician stand up and say, “Yes, I was warned a tragic loss of life would result in my making this law, but I decided that it was in the better interests of the urban public I serve, to have more grizzly bears in the areas that rural people live and work.”

    Who do we hold accountable?"

    Peahead, walleyes and Hookin'up like this.
  7. cracked_ribs

    cracked_ribs Well-Known Member

    I really agree with this. You are made of meat. If you live where big predators live, you run the risk of becoming prey. Obviously it's awful for the people who were close to the mother and child who were killed and eaten, but big predators kill and eat most anything they want. This isn't a crazy freak accident in which a predator did something out of the ordinary and we need to track down what bizarre thing went awry to explain this aberrant behaviour...this is normal behaviour for a giant animal that eats stuff made out of the same thing we're made out of. If you're in its path, you may be its food.

    Does it mean more or less trophy hunting should happen? That I don't know. I am very much a supporter of hunting; like sport fishermen, few people know their respective environments better than people whose passion takes them there as often as possible, and dedicated hunters are to their regions what dedicated fishermen are to our coasts and rivers. I have nothing against trophy hunting at all. I'm more hesitant to link laws about trophy hunting to human safety; events like this are rare enough that I think it's hard to draw a direct line between any policy and a particular, if tragic, death. I don't like legislation via emotion.

    So whether we can learn anything from this event or not, I'm not really sure. I guess it serves as a brutal reminder: nature is nothing like a Disney movie. I'm sure this family understood that as it sounds like they were committed outdoors people, but I'm equally sure that most onlookers will not understand this.

    But mostly I just feel for the guy who lost his wife and daughter. He's living a nightmare.
  8. paguy

    paguy Well-Known Member

    As long as humans inhabit this earth, Predators will have to be managed, Hunting is the number one tool for doing that. Think of grizzly bears like the sealion of the woods and you can see what happens when you don't manage the predators.
  9. Discus

    Discus Well-Known Member

    My girlfriend her friends know what happend.
    That is very sad for them and the father has lost his wife and the baby.
  10. banger17

    banger17 Well-Known Member

    Most importantly - this is tragic and terrible. My condolences to the family and husband/father - I can’t imagine the pain.

    I struggle with the beliefs that if humans are around we have to “manage” everything

    If I choose to walk the amazon and snakes bite and kill me - should we “manage” and kill the snakes of the amazon?

    If I choose to jog in the grasslands of Tanzania and a lion takes my life, shall we manage them to a reasonable number too?

    Maybe not the best examples - but you get my point that when we make life decisions and explore nature’s rugged beauty, we take massive risks and outcomes can be catastrophic. Let’s not be so quick to think culling and managing everything dangerous will make everyone else’s life so much better because of it.
    Clint r, saanauk, terrin and 3 others like this.
  11. Birdsnest

    Birdsnest Well-Known Member

    It's still very awefull but it would be interesting to know what that family's attitude was towards the bears propior to the incident. A crying baby around any bears is absolutely frightening to me.
    There is a doc called Grizzly Man that is about a man who lives with g bears in the wild and eventually get himself and his girlfriend killed and eaten by one. Ironically by a bear he loathed. It is worth watching.
  12. Thunder21

    Thunder21 Well-Known Member

    It absolutely blows my mind how different our province is from one end to the other. An otter was caught in a pond in Vancouver eating Koi fish and every goddamn night for about a week this thing was on the news with people calling for action to save the fish. A week later a grizzly eats a mother and baby alive and people are saying we shouldn't be managing predators. I know the grizzly was in the Yukon but does that not sound rediculous to anyone else?
    halimark, Dave H, walleyes and 4 others like this.
  13. Foxsea

    Foxsea Well-Known Member

    If grizzly bears and other wildlife cannot live in the Yukon, where can they go?

    A 2013 status report by COSEWIC estimated there were about 26,000 grizzly bears in Western Canada, with the majority of them in B.C. (approximately 15,000). Yukon had an estimated 6,000 to 7,000 grizzlies.

    The federal government says human encroachment resulting in the loss and fragmentation of habitat is one of the biggest threats to Canada's grizzly population. A naturally low reproductive rate adds to the population's vulnerability.

    B.C. and the Yukon are two areas where wild populations still exist. Humans can live anywhere. They cannot.
    saanauk, terrin and Islander57 like this.
  14. cracked_ribs

    cracked_ribs Well-Known Member

    Well, I would guess that the "save the koi" people and the "this is a tragic outcome of normal behaviour" people aren't necessarily the same people.

    But in general I'm just hesitant to link policy to a single tragedy. For the koi people I'd say "this might be a single problem otter which we should deal with...but should we adopt a wholesale otter management because we don't like this one unusual event?"

    And without knowing a lot more about the situation of bears around this family I would ask the same question.

    I'm not against culls or wildlife management, but I agree with banger17. You don't necessarily improve the world by exercising those options every time. No matter how awful these deaths are.
    Clint r likes this.
  15. paguy

    paguy Well-Known Member

    Man has made this planet a different place then it was a thousand years ago, And the few places we have left for the wild life has a carrying capacity that must be managed.
    Peahead, halimark and IronNoggin like this.
  16. casper5280

    casper5280 Well-Known Member

    If a grizzly is affecting human survival than a person should be able to shot it. Grizzlies aren’t problem bears they are killers that is what they do. Not saying go out and kill all the grizzlies. These people knew the risks and I’m sure are huge animal rights people as they trapped for a living so would want a healthy animal population to continue their way of life
    IronNoggin likes this.
  17. The Jackel

    The Jackel Guest

    Hhmmm seems to be a lot of leaf licker salad munchers on here. First off show me where in the article Jim states a CULL, nope not there ah ha, second quit using the stupid word TROPHY, why don't you all read the hunting regs, it clearly states that all edible portions of the animal must be taken, if you chose to mount the deer, elk or tan a bear hide so what. If you are not a hunter its your choice, if you are a hunter again it is your choice. I have had one friend killed by a grizz when i was in high school, and 2 others attacked, the 2 that survived have no animosity to the gbear, just happened to be bad timing. As for the ban on hunting gbears none of it was based on science, just human emotion. So lets turn this around a bit, SRKW issue is a hot topic on here, it seems the science is lacking but the general public wants to shut everything down, ok using your leaf licking mentality i say yup shut down the sportsfishing completely and the commercial fishing leave all the chinook to the whales and there you have it, it seems there are a bunch of hypocrites on this site
  18. Islander57

    Islander57 Well-Known Member

    I don't think because two people were killed by a grizzly is a call for re-instatement of trophy hunting these bears. In the Yukon, these are the first grizzly deaths in over a decade. B.C.'s last fatal grizzly attack was fifteen years ago. I think when people venture into grizzly country, they assume an inherent risk and an encounter is all too possible. Most attacks are the result of a bear been startled and attacks out of its natural instinct.
    The sad fact with grizzly hunting, is the meat is often left behind to spoil. It is the rug the hunter is after, and the "prestige" of killing an apex predator. The fact is, grizzlies can still be hunted in B.C. by indigenous people. The ban is on the trophy hunt. Bringing back trophy hunting will not prevent bear attacks. What happened in the Yukon has not been fully disclosed. There may have been a number of factors that lead to the attack. i.e. were there carcasses as the result of trapping close to the cabin?, was this an old bear or a sick bear?, was it a sow who had cubs?, was the bear startled? These answers have not been released. Calling for a cull is more than premature, and probably not even a reasonable solution.
    I don't take Jim Shockey as an unbiased contributor. He guides in the Yukon. He makes a living from guiding trophy hunts. I think in B.C., the sentiments about re-instating grizzly hunting at this point is premature. The financial benefit is greater with bear watching than it is with trophy hunting. I'm sure if the numbers become out of hand, a limited hunt may be re-instated, but it shouldn't happen over a single incident, that didn't even happen in B.C.
    I think if there is a fatal grizzly attack, nature is responsible, as grizzly attacks are not at epidemic levels, far from that.
    california likes this.
  19. california

    california Well-Known Member

    What utter nonsense. Its a tragic event yes, but for this guy Shockey to use it to misrepresent the situation as a "Grizzly Bear Plague" to further his own political and economic agenda is disgusting. Bear fatalities, as with shark, lion and other apex predator fatalities are an unfortunate, infrequent, but predictable consequence of us as a potential food item venturing in to these animals domains. Wiping them out in response to an attack used to be a common response, its not acceptable any longer.
    Cuba Libre, Clint r, Dave H and 3 others like this.
  20. The Jackel

    The Jackel Guest

    57 and Cali do yourselves a favour and read the hunting regs, you are making yourselves look uneducated, "'wiping them out, cull, trophy hunting" ( as for trophy hunting there is no such thing, just an anti catch phrase), again READ THE HUNTING REGS, get educated before you make these comments, and again show me in the article where Jim says CULL. What have you done for wildlife, Shockey has done more in a year than you both will do in your entire life, what you huggers don't get is us as hunters want healthy populations of game in the bush and we donate a lot of money and time for habitat restoration, not like yourselves who just sit behind your computer sipping your lattes and think you are saving the world, probably why you both voted for PR representation. Oh and answer my question to shutting down the entire coast to fishing, take your time do some research. Do you both eat any meat, chicken, pork, beef etc, if so please supply why this is ok and hunting for your own source of lean organic meat is not. Have you ever had gbear to eat, i have and it was excellent, until you have tried it, or hunted please refrain from saying it is wrong or the meat is no good to eat.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page