Grizzly mom that mauled Yellowstone hiker euthanized after DNA links bear to 2nd hiker attack

WaPo ^ | October 4, 2011 | AP

[jazusamo]

BILLINGS, Mont. — A grizzly bear that fatally mauled a hiker in Yellowstone National Park was killed after DNA evidence linked the animal to the scene of a second hiker’s death a month later, a park official said Monday.

The decision to euthanize the 250-pound female bear was meant to protect park visitors and staff, Superintendent Dan Wenk said.

[Revel]

Idiots. And they were called so before the death of the 2nd person. I was chastised for saying once a bear tastes human blood then it is over.

[TheOldLady]

Click the Pic               Thank you, JoeProBono

Follow the Exciting Adventures of Gary the Snail!

Abolish FReepathons
Go Monthly
Sponsoring FReepers will contribute $10
For each New Monthly Donor Sign-up

[jazusamo]

Great point. It shows the mindset of many of the bureaucrats that are running wildlife management in the country, their priorities leave a lot to be desired.

[Citizen Soldier]

I still think grizzlies should be reintroduced in California. It is after all the symbol on their state flag. The best place to reintroduce them is the hills of Malibu where the most liberal tree huggers with money live.

[jazusamo]

Exactly. And the way they’ve delayed putting this info out and making it sound like there’s still doubt shows that they know they messed up. The bunk about not being sure is to try to partially cover their blatant mistake.

[allmendream]

There is a great deal of question, and still is, if this particular sow killed Wallace (the first person).

It’s DNA was found at the scene on Wallace along with the DNA of EIGHT OTHER BEARS.

There was no indication given that this sow did anything to Wallace other than feed on his body - as did eight other bears.

Now are you suggesting that because one hiker got mauled and NINE bears fed on his body - that the Park Service should go out and kill NINE bears?

[cpdiii]

Their decision to not kill the sow grizzly after the first death could very well have cost John Wallace his life.

It should have been put down after the first attack. After the first attack the bear then realized that humans are easy kills.

[jazusamo]

No. The eight other bears didn’t kill Brian Matayoshi (the first person killed).

[Man from Oz]

I saw this grizz 2 weeks ago at the Anchorage Zoo. The size of their claws is incredible. They are true killing machines!

[allmendream]

The same evidence that linked the other eight bears to Wallace’s dead body is the same evidence that linked this particular sow to Wallace’s dead body - DNA from scat that shows she (and eight other bears) fed on his body.

There was no evidence given that would indicate this sow as more likely than any of the others to be the killer until she was linked to a second mauling death.

So do you suggest that if a hiker is killed by a bear and they show that nine bears fed on his body - that all nine bears should be killed?

[jazusamo]

That’s a good pic, thanks for posting.

Yep, they are scary animals when you see them up close and a zoo is the only place I want to be that close. :)

[halo66]

Nice pic!

[Man from Oz]

I have talked to too many folks in Alaska who hunt for moose and the like. Hearing their description of how a Brown Bear “pops” their teeth together and hops up and down when they are tooooo close is downright scary!

Yep!! The zoo is the ONLY place I wish to see one of these creatures!!!!!

[China Clipper]

This bear may have been trapped, tagged, and DNA tested in the past. They have records like this on many of the bears in this area.

Hmm.. Puzzling.. So they had info on this bear, medical info, and very probably knew she was aggressive.

So....here comes a multi-million dollar lawsuit by the family of the deceased. Issue: Mr Park Ranger, you obviously knew this was a deadly bear and you did nothing about it. Ruling: For the plaintiff; reward the family a few million dollars.

[China Clipper]

I’ll say again, any wild animal that kills a human should be put down if the animal can be identified, no matter where it takes place.

I will up ya one.

ANY animal that kills OR SEVERELY THREATENS OR INJURES a human should be DESTROYED no matter where it takes place. The injured party or surviving family members should have first right of refusal.

(I'm not a monster)

[jazusamo]

ANY animal that kills OR SEVERELY THREATENS OR INJURES a human

That works for me too, probably better.

[halo66]

So, if your dog bites/mauls someone breaking into your house or is protecting you from a perceived threat, can I have your dog put down? You say ANY animal. These bears are simply protecting their young/territory as would a dog protecting you.

[China Clipper]

1) I don't have a dog. (Or a cat, or a rat or a weasel or whatever.) Read my tagline
2) I don't care if the animals are pit bulls, bears, coyotes, cougars, eagles or whatever they are and even if they are "protecting their young". I am protecting humans. Period
3) IF I had a dog, you would have a good point :) Exception created.

[halo66]

LOL...never did read your tagline!

[TigersEye]

I don't have a problem with putting down an animal that has attacked and/or killed a person but anyone who enters state or federal land designated for the purpose of wildlife habitat should be barred from the privilege of suing the gov for being attacked by an animal.

Wilderness areas and National Parks shouldn't be viewed as Disney adventure parks IMO and that is becoming the norm more and more. The animal makes its choices, however ignorant they may be in making them, and suffers the consequences. Humans make their choices and ought to bear (no pun intended) the consequences for them too.