Grizzly Encounter / Shots Fired near Big Sky

Joined
Apr 8, 2019
Messages
1,798
This is what I'd like to see substantiated with data. I haven't seen it yet. I suspect a lot of what has been posted in here is emotionally driven vs data driven. Don't get me wrong, I get the heebeejeebees in g bear country myself. I'm just aware it's an illogical emotional response.
 

Rich M

WKR
Joined
Jun 14, 2017
Messages
5,181
Location
Orlando
I didn't read it - "retreated" quickly. LoL! the folks settling the plains and mountains realized that the big bears were trouble and killed em off.

Some folks want to save everything, from the 3-spined darter in the CA irrigation ditches to some obtuse little blue tailed lizard that lives in the sand to these bears. Those people (and there are a lot of them) have their heads in the sand. With the increase in development, stuff changes, over eons, things have gone extinct for unknown reasons, temperature variations, virus, whatever. It is okay for the big bears to be controlled to a very small number or none at all.

We have a black bear problem in FL - no number management at all. Some folks with their heads in the sand. "Oh, i like em" is the only answer you get. They are insulated from the bears and the seeds in the crap, so it's easy to say "Oh, we need them".
 

D S 319

WKR
Joined
Jan 17, 2021
Messages
338
What benefit do humans bring to the ecosystem....?

I'll wait while you consider that obtuse line of questioning.
We also don’t each each other on the trail typically, that could be a benefit? We typically try to prevent or lessen forest fires with management, kind of a benefit?

Humans are a cancer for sure, but let’s not straw man the topic at hand. Back to you, dude.
 

ProStaffSteve

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Apr 26, 2022
Messages
286
Time to poke the bear (pun intended)

Lots of arrogance on full display.

Take the average human and the average grizzly bear. The human is not the apex predator in this comparison.

Now some WKRs will be the exception. You can recognize these "elite" individuals by their sheer vegan-like arrogance. Without even asking, they will tell you just how superior they are and how bad ass they are when it comes to instilling fear into all animals. If they were 1/10 as bad ass as they claim to be, then there's zero threat from grizzly bears, mountain lions, etc. by just them being in an area. And being the world class business people they also claim to be (see plenty of other threads), they can start a hiker/camper/climber/hunter protection business. For a modest fee, they will show up and all the evil creatures will either run away in fear or sit pretty so folks can pet them, photograph them, etc; basically whatever the bad ass WKR tells the animal to do.

Sad that folks are actually talking about using SSS on a federally protected species. If a person doesn't like a specific law/ruling/regulation, work the process and get it changed. It is also interesting the moderators are actually allowing the discussion of violating federal law to even occur.

All the doom and gloom about grizzly bears. Add up the associated maulings and killings over a single year. That number still would be a slow night compared to the very real and far more common threats commonly found across all of the utopian metropolitan centers in the Lower 48.

I mean, if they hit population goals and don’t reciprocate with rational legislation, what’s wrong with questioning? Im not pro SSS, by any measure and I think it’s jokes. I pray anyone on this site, if ever charged in some dark thick brush, they will be able to land a bullet squarely in their brain and walk away to deal with less legal loopholes than the last guy. Just such a touchy deal. When it comes to hunting them, hear me out, give a grizzly tag to every elk hunter in MT and all the bears will stick to private land in about two years if they learn as quickly as things with pretty antlers.

Also, yeah, our world has some very interesting all-cause mortality for humans. Bears being the bottom of that list next to sharks. Mental health help ain’t no joke, the gym isn’t a bad idea either. Bear spray and paintballs don’t help with those.
 

S.Clancy

WKR
Joined
Jan 28, 2015
Messages
2,325
Location
Montana
We also don’t each each other on the trail typically, that could be a benefit? We typically try to prevent or lessen forest fires with management, kind of a benefit?

Humans are a cancer for sure, but let’s not straw man the topic at hand. Back to you, dude.
My point is they obviously have a place in the ecosystem as they evolved in it. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not important.

My frustration is I think a majority of hunters, or an outdoor 'enthusiast', would rather hunt in a glorified zoo than an actual wild place.

Bears are dangerous, yes. Are most people woefully inadequate at mitigating risk in bear country, yes.

The fact that there isn't a shit load more maulings every year is more a testament that the vast majority of bears are incredibly averse to interactions with humans.

Do I think hunting will help, no. Do I care if there is a season or not, no. Do I think we need more mitigation dollars for farmers and ranchers, yes. I have friends that ranch on the Front and hear their stories, I'm very cautious when I'm up there backpacking, hunting, whatever.

Every bear thread turns into this armchair QB of douchebags, of which very few actually live within 500 miles of G-Bear country, running their mouth about SSS and all this shit. Newsflash, most of you will never see a G-Bear to SSS because you'll either never be here or never get out of your truck while you are. The closest thing you'll get to SSS is taking a dump in the borrow pit of a gravel road, except you'll forgot the shovel part and as a surface shitting Neanderthal leave 3 rolls of toilet paper to disperse in the wind.
 

Fowl Play

WKR
Joined
Oct 1, 2016
Messages
464
Do I think hunting will help, no. Do I care if there is a season or not, no. Do I think we need more mitigation dollars for farmers and ranchers, yes. I have friends that ranch on the Front and hear their stories, I'm very cautious when I'm up there backpacking, hunting, whatever.
I find this an interesting opinion, but you are entitled to it.

I personally think there are much more pressing matters to spend our tax dollars on, than subsidizing grizzly bear food.
 
Joined
Dec 2, 2022
Messages
352
Location
Southest Michigan
Reading this article put a thought into my head.. would hunting with a suppressor technically reduce the chance that a shot scares away a charging bear? Obviously the objective would be to hit the bear in this case, but there are videos showing people missing and also firing “warning” shots effectively scaring off bears.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

grfox92

WKR
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
2,480
Location
NW WY
Reading this article put a thought into my head.. would hunting with a suppressor technically reduce the chance that a shot scares away a charging bear? Obviously the objective would be to hit the bear in this case, but there are videos showing people missing and also firing “warning” shots effectively scaring off bears.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think hunting with a supressor will mitigate some chance of a bear coming in to your gun shots when you shoot an animal. I always thought the "dinner bell" idea was nonsense, until I had a massive boar come running in on us full speed with the wind at his back while we were cutting up my mule deer last year.

Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk
 
Joined
Apr 8, 2019
Messages
1,798
What did you think you did with this post?
Just trying to provide some data that the population is showing up in places they haven't been in the past. Probably poor choice with the link was in hurry.
Here is another link...
This is what they have data on...you and I both know the gov wheels turn slow.

I am all for them being on the landscape, but locals shouldn't be forced to deal with them because the definition of "recovery" has changed over the years.
 
Joined
Jul 30, 2015
Messages
5,733
Location
Lenexa, KS
Just trying to provide some data that the population is showing up in places they haven't been in the past. Probably poor choice with the link was in hurry.
Here is another link...
This is what they have data on...you and I both know the gov wheels turn slow.

I am all for them being on the landscape, but locals shouldn't be forced to deal with them because the definition of "recovery" has changed over the years.

Ah I get you. I agree they are expanding range. It's kinda cool, kinda creepy (to me).

I was looking for data suggesting they're actually hurting/killing more people than they have in the past, and that the amount of hurting/killing they are doing is significant in relation to the other risks people face in the outdoors.
 

grfox92

WKR
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
2,480
Location
NW WY
Ah I get you. I agree they are expanding range. It's kinda cool, kinda creepy (to me).

I was looking for data suggesting they're actually hurting/killing more people than they have in the past, and that the amount of hurting/killing they are doing is significant in relation to the other risks people face in the outdoors.

I don't think they are attacking more people than they did in the past. I think the attacks are more sensationalized due to social media, so it gives the illusion that they are increasing in number.

People around here have been getting mauled for decades. Most of the ones 10+ years old didn't even have a news story.

Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: OMF

Greenbelt

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Mar 2, 2023
Messages
147
Fish and game kill them pretty regularly, my buddy is a warden out of great falls and has been on at least one dangerous bear in the Bob. I’ll have to ask him if he has any other, might as well raffle the tags off. Heck bring a population like that to Co and you are in for some real excitement… I have a feeling we may get it with wolves… probably going to set some records for new negative human/wolf interactions
We have wolves where I'm at and you literally never see them. They decimate the game population but the encounters with humans is literally less than lions.
 

Rokwiia

WKR
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
Messages
886
Location
In the mountains
I don't think they are attacking more people than they did in the past. I think the attacks are more sensationalized due to social media, so it gives the illusion that they are increasing in number.

People around here have been getting mauled for decades. Most of the ones 10+ years old didn't even have a news story.

Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk
I can't speak to the total number of attacks by grizzlies but the number of fatal attacks by grizzlies are rising. Here are numbers per decade:

2020-2023 9
2010-2019 17
2000-2009 10
1990-1999 13
1980-1989 9
1970-1979 9
1960-1969 3

As you can see, the current decade is on pace to hit the low 20s in deaths.

I think the more operative question is how many deaths are there per year when compared to the number of people recreating in grizzly territory whether it be hikers, hunters, runners, cyclists, or others. I would guess the number of people going into grizzly areas have also increased significantly. If true, then maybe the deadly attacks per person entering grizzly territory has deceased but I don't have the statistics that would enable me to draw that conclusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America

I believe the fatal attacks by black bear are increasing as well as evidenced by this chart covering 109 years referenced in the May 11, 2011 edition of The Journal of Wildlife Management:

https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wile...i=10.1002/jwmg.72&file=jwmg_72_sm_tableS1.pdf
 
Last edited:
Top