Had the bears entered an occupied home they'd have been bucking.
They didn't, they entered what to them was essentially a cave thanks to the stupidity of the owners.
And it's not exactly like the owners didn't have any place else to live. This was obviously a second home for them and they just couldn't wait 6 more weeks to get that insurance check.
Had it been a safety issue it's a different story but it wasn't as is evidenced by them wanting the bears killed because the insurance company wouldn't go in until they were gone and as another has pointed out because they stood to make some money off of it.
Safety is one thing, this was not about safety for them.
It would appear from your post, that you are trying to advance the idea that because the human wasn't occuping the cabin, the poor, needy bears were justified in trashing that citizen's home.
Such views are central to the writings of Marx and Mao, but are generally considered to be antithetical to conservative principles and precepts.
It further appears that you object to the human killing the bears because they caused enormous financial damage to the human.
Damage, which I note neither the PETA person ('person' used loosely) not you offered to pay. It would seem you are eager to inflict an undue burden on the property owner to advance your position - which is beginning to resemble the enviro-socialism of the Liberal and their fellow travellers in PETA. ad nauseam.