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. Powerset

    Powerset Active Member

    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.
     
  2. SerengetiGuide

    SerengetiGuide Well-Known Member

    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...
     
    Peahead, Pippen, halimark and 3 others like this.
  3. The Jackel

    The Jackel Guest

    Sum bitch, would ya look at that me and SG on the same page, maybe there is hope for us all :D
     
    SerengetiGuide and IronNoggin like this.
  4. wildmanyeah

    wildmanyeah Crew Member

    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: Dec 3, 2018
    Clint r likes this.
  5. Islander57

    Islander57 Well-Known Member

    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.
     
    alumaman likes this.
  6. kelly

    kelly Well-Known Member

    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.
     
    Clint r and alumaman like this.
  7. SerengetiGuide

    SerengetiGuide Well-Known Member

    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.
     
  8. kelly

    kelly Well-Known Member

    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: Dec 4, 2018
    Clint r and Pippen like this.
  9. Clint r

    Clint r Well-Known Member

    Excellent post. Good on you.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2018
  10. Fish Camp

    Fish Camp Well-Known Member

    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.
     
  11. IronNoggin

    IronNoggin Well-Known Member

    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
     
    island idiots likes this.
  12. IronNoggin

    IronNoggin Well-Known Member

    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
     
  13. wildmanyeah

    wildmanyeah Crew Member

    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?
     
  14. kelly

    kelly Well-Known Member

    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: Dec 4, 2018
    trophywife and Islander57 like this.
  15. Islander57

    Islander57 Well-Known Member

    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.
    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.
     
    kelly likes this.
  16. Clint r

    Clint r Well-Known Member

    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 shit 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: Dec 4, 2018
  17. kevind

    kevind Active Member

    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.
     
  18. SerengetiGuide

    SerengetiGuide Well-Known Member

    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.
     
    Peahead, IronNoggin and CVmike like this.
  19. The Jackel

    The Jackel Guest

    So for all you guys who hunt especially Mister 57 etc, what is the definition of a trophy hunt
     
  20. Islander57

    Islander57 Well-Known Member

    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: Dec 4, 2018
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page