I first seen this lengthly and equally informative article on the Longreads website.

As with any discussion on bears, this can be a polarizing topic for many but this story dispels myths and misinformation and also brings to light some interesting bear behavioral traits.

What happens when a grizzly bear kills a human being in Yellowstone National Park? An examination of a special criminal justice system designed to protect endangered bears, while giving leeway to euthanize bears that kill humans in ways that are deemed "unnatural":

"It’s a squirrely notion, that a team of government biologists might be able to figure out why a bear does the things it does, or whether any bear behavior could truly be described as 'unnatural.' But whatever its shortcomings, the grizzly justice system has been mostly successful over the years since it was introduced, and is reasonably popular. People seem to like the fact that a female bear can kill someone while protecting her cubs and be acquitted of the crime. According to a poll conducted by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department in 2001, more than 70 percent of Wyoming residents believe that grizzly bears are a benefit to the state and are an important component of the Yellowstone ecosystem. They want grizzlies to have the benefit of the doubt."

I'll take the bait Teslinhiker, and thank you for posting the article.

There are some interesting points about the investigation process and bear behavior, but the overall tone of it kind of irks me. I might stir up a hornets nest here, but this is my opinion

IMO, this is another article about a fatal bear attack where the anthropomorphising writer trys to tell us how rare bear attacks are. The cartoon is in reference to the timeline posted in the article where someone felt it was necessary to determine the cause of death was not desease related.

I think we have to come to grips with certain 'truths':

1. Wilderness is a myth...It has been gone for centuries

2. Ever increasing numbers of apex carnivores can not live in peace and harmony with ever increasing numbers of humans and livestock

3. Bears, wolves, pumas, and coyotes must be re-conditioned to fear humans for their own protection. This is really not that hard to do.

4. If the ecosystem cannot support apex predators with their natural food, then the population of these predators must be reduced.








Well Watson, he's torn to shreds, half eaten, and buried under sod and tree branches....I think we can rule out heart attack.

After I read the article, I came away with a differing take on the information. Like any information, reading, interpreting, digesting it all depends on individuals experience, philosophic outlook etc.

Although I did not agree with how the writer crafted the story in general, I like to think that the experts quoted in the story whom have years of real world bear behavior experience, vastly outbalances the "armchair experts" who over the years on various websites and forums (including here) have posted very bad information with little in the way of real world experience, and do not provide links to accredited research, sources etc.

That said, off for a hike in a few minutes. In some of the low lying areas around here, a few bears are already out of hibernation and we may be fortunate to cross paths (from a safe distance) of mamma bear and her new cubs.

Interesting point - and quite true. As a proponent of established wilderness areas, I would have to say that they are a modern concept - "areas where the hand of man has never set foot" per one classic definition.

I am intrigued, as an archaeologist, that many of the wilderness areas with which I am familiar, such as the Gila Wilderness in New Mexico (the first established in the current US system) bears unmistakable signs of human habitation during prehistoric times throughout the entire area.

At Channel Islands National Park, management is striving towards establishing a stable ecosystem relatively free of direct human impacts so that natural and native species can thrive and flourish. This is fine, but one should remember that this is an unprecedented situation. There is well documented evidence for a significant human presence in the Channel Islands ever since the end of the Ice Age, along with definite human influences on the surrounding natural world. The situation that is developing, with islands devoid of permanent human populations, is unique and unprecedented. That doesn't mean it is bad, just that it is unlike any historical analogue. Our various wilderness areas are very modern concepts, primarily valuable in that we recognize that certain areas of the planet should be devoid of roads and other signs of development.

The thing that caught my eye in the very informative piece was the armament carried by the biologists- a 45-70 backed up by a 44 magnum. Kind of ironic, but probably justifiable given the situation into which they were intruding.

For me, the takeaway after reading various items in the literature, is 1) that camp cleanliness and alteration of "normal" backwoods camping routines is more important than armament carried; 2) bear spray is more effective than firearms, also lighter.

This was an interesting article. I enjoyed reading it.

I don't think the writer had an ulterior motive. He doesn't anthropomorphize the bears or gets preachy on the rareness of bear attacks. If anything, the way he frames the issue(s) points out what a strange thing it is to have a "justice system" for sentencing bears based on perceived "natural" and "unnatural" behavior.