Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bear traps have been set in the area, Yellowstone said, adding that "if bears are trapped and identified as having been involved in the attack, they will be euthanized."
“We may not be able to conclusively determine the circumstances of this bear attack, but we will not risk public safety,” Yellowstone National Park Superintendent Dan Wenk said in a statement. “We are deeply saddened by this tragedy and our hearts go out to the family and friends of the victim as they work to cope with the loss of someone who loved Yellowstone so very much
This makes me boil that they would be euthanized. Hikers are in their territory.
I have been to Yosemite, Yellowstone--no way am I going to hike, not willing to take the risk. I don't think it is fair it one decides to take the risk and a bear attacks, the bear will be punished.
I don't understand the bear/bears being euthanized unless there is a pattern of violence from a bear.
Being in the wild can be dangerous but less so than getting to Yellowstone or Yosemite.
Deaths are also caused by the geysers and bubbling pots occasionally (probably more than from bears) maybe they should add ice water to them to turn down the temperature.
As far as Yosemite goes maybe they should turn off the waterfalls because in the last few years some people have been swept over.
And I bet this bear has a mother with a few cubs she was trying to protect. Do they kill the cubs too when/if they kill the mother? Good grief, leave the bear and other wildlife alone. This is a national park with wildlife, not a controlled theme park or zoo, and people have to accept the very low risk they take when hiking into it.
And I bet this bear has a mother with a few cubs she was trying to protect. Do they kill the cubs too when/if they kill the mother? Good grief, leave the bear and other wildlife alone. This is a national park with wildlife, not a controlled theme park or zoo, and people have to accept the very low risk they take when hiking into it.
The cubs will die if they kills the mother & are left to fend for themselves.
The cubs will die if they kills the mother & are left to fend for themselves.
If they trap the bear the cups will hang around the mother and can be trapped as well. The last bear to kill and eat a person in Yellowstone was a mother with cubs. The cubs were trapped and sent to a wildlife park. I imagine the same will happen in this case.
That guy was killed by the same bear that killed the Japanese tourist and allowed to live because the tourist ran from the bear. The investigation determined the second victim was sitting down on a log eating an energy bar and the bear snuck up on him and attacked. They found the remains of the energy bar under the guy's buried half-eaten corpse, so obviously the bear wasn't after that.
Bear traps have been set in the area, Yellowstone said, adding that "if bears are trapped and identified as having been involved in the attack, they will be euthanized."
“We may not be able to conclusively determine the circumstances of this bear attack, but we will not risk public safety,” Yellowstone National Park Superintendent Dan Wenk said in a statement. “We are deeply saddened by this tragedy and our hearts go out to the family and friends of the victim as they work to cope with the loss of someone who loved Yellowstone so very much
This makes me boil that they would be euthanized. Hikers are in their territory.
I have been to Yosemite, Yellowstone--no way am I going to hike, not willing to take the risk. I don't think it is fair it one decides to take the risk and a bear attacks, the bear will be punished.
While I understand your position it is a sad fact that bears are very smart. Once they learn that people are easy pickins they are far more likely to attack again. They may even start actively hunting people. A humane euthanization is the only real solution.
To be really blunt, I don't really agree with this whole "we're in their territory" thing. We're humans, we OWN this planet. It's ours. We have the right to go where we jolly well please and explore what we see, and we have the right to protect ourselves from attack. If the animals can't adapt to our superiority, tough.
That doesn't mean I don't agree with areas being set aside as being "pure" with nature or whatever, that's fine. However, if it's a place that is meant for humans to explore and is popular, which is certainly the case with Yellowstone, then even though Yellowstone isn't Disneyland, humans should be able to explore and then protect themselves from attack, even with guns if necessary. If the bears can't adapt, tough.
We OWN nothing. This land is here for ALL living creatures to enjoy, and that includes the native animal population. We don't have the right to explore anywhere we want either....there are plenty of places on this planet that are OFF LIMITS to humans, and usually with good reason.
Yellowstone does NOT have to tolerate stupid tourists, especially when they invade like locusts. They have the absolute right to limit tourists when the numbers start to get too large. I don't they should risk future occurances of people screaming "off with the bears head" just because they are allowing in too many people.
No, it's about the safety of the people visiting the park. I'm all for conservation and I love wildlife, but the life of a person is more important than a bear.
.
Thats your opinion.
The value of something is directly related to it's rarity. Humans are over 7 million now and bears are how many ? Nah....Bears win. Sorry but we've overbreed our species SO much that honestly, humans don't hold the value they think they do anymore.
I, for one have NO intention on living on a planet without our innocent animals because people refuse to control their numbers and insist on running every other living creature off this planet so that we can make room for yet STILL MOAR people.
Yes, and it's the opinion of someone with a sense of morality. It's downright amoral to suggest that any animal is even 1 trillionth as important as a human being. Human being life, REGARDLESS OF BEHAVIOR, is far more sacred than that of any animal, simply because they're a human being. Period. Any other opinion is WRONG.
Meanwhile, Uncle Ted roams free and keeps on killing for sport.
I fully agree with you. Wildlife gets a raw deal and only has the illusion of freedom when people are anywhere nearby. This is especially true in the lower 48 where wilderness is mostly broken up. And a new wave of industrialization in the form of wind turbines is threatening a lot of habitat under a green cloak.
Don't you understand that man is a "keystone species" that can and does alter the environment to its liking? If man decides to preserve nature, it is a good decision that I agree with.There is no absolute right of animals to non-disturbance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
