Fatal Bear Attacks - North America

[jakeman]

The main issue with the overpopulation of elk in Yellowstone is because the tree huggers successfully prevented hunting within the border of the park. Elm migrating off the NP were fair game and some never left, just bred and multiplied. There were solutions that could have easily reduced the herd without reintroduction of wolves.
I can't wrap my head around what a wolf would do to bring in $7-10 million dollars annually in direct economic impact. I'd like to see the documentation about how that happens.

https://www.yellowstonepark.com/thi...imated-7-10-million-in-annual-tourism-revenue

https://helenair.com/news/state-and...cle_649f73d9-27f6-5f9f-b336-25fb6a72bb92.html

As to managing the park, removing an apex predator was a mistake. It was always a mistake, and it will always be a mistake. Arguing against that is lunacy. I'm a hunter. I'd like to to kill a wolf, and an Elk. Eliminating either or any of the other native species from Yellowstone was a mistake , and it always will be. It changed the park in ways that were bad for the ecosystem. It will always be changed, and the damage that was done can't ever be fully corrected, but replacing the wolf has certainly helped.

https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wolf-reintroduction-changes-ecosystem

 

[dennishoddy]

https://www.yellowstonepark.com/thi...imated-7-10-million-in-annual-tourism-revenue

https://helenair.com/news/state-and...cle_649f73d9-27f6-5f9f-b336-25fb6a72bb92.html

As to managing the park, removing an apex predator was a mistake. It was always a mistake, and it will always be a mistake. Arguing against that is lunacy. I'm a hunter. I'd like to to kill a wolf, and an Elk. Eliminating either or any of the other native species from Yellowstone was a mistake , and it always will be. It changed the park in ways that were bad for the ecosystem. It will always be changed, and the damage that was done can't ever be fully corrected, but replacing the wolf has certainly helped.

https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wolf-reintroduction-changes-ecosystem

Some folks disagree.
Multiple scientists have also challenged ideas about wolves’ positive impact on Wyoming ecosystems. In a 2009 study, the ecologists Scott Creel and David Christianson contend that elk’s reduced consumption of willow trees “was more strongly affected by snow conditions than by the presence of wolves.” The scientists Matthew Kauffman, Jedediah Brodie, and Erik Jules also refute the notion that wolves played a central role in helping Yellowstone aspen trees to recover in their 2010 article. That study also concludes that “aspen are not currently recovering in Yellowstone, even in the presence of a large wolf population.” (Other scientists have gone on to disagree with Kauffman, Brodie, and Jules’s findings, publishing scholarly refutations of that study.)

Wyoming currently has an open season on wolves outside of yellowstone. Montana, Idaho, Minnesota and Wisconsin also have limited hunting season on the wolves because of the damage they cause to livestock and wildlife. Alaska has a shoot on sight for wolves. They are not protected at all.
Personally I wouldn't walk across the street to see a wolf, but I guess it's interesting to some that don't get out into nature much and the outfitters seem to be making a "killing" on the tourists, so I'll concede with them bringing in more money.

 

[MacFromOK]

Some folks disagree.
Multiple scientists have also challenged ideas about wolves’ positive impact on Wyoming ecosystems.

I'm guessin' ranchers around the borders of Yellowstone would strongly disagree...

 

[dennishoddy]

I'm guessin' ranchers around the borders of Yellowstone would strongly disagree...

If your a rancher working on a shoestring, which most do, the loss of cattle can be a make or break issue.
Wolves killed 243 livestock, including 154 cattle, 88 sheep and one horse, in 2016 for the state of Wyoming.
I didn't look for any current numbers. I think the state does pay the ranchers for confirmed wolf kills of livestock.

 

[SoonerP226]

The thing I found most surprising, was the number of folks that were dragged out of tents or attacked in cabins after bears broke through doors or windows.

Apparently, if a bear wants ya bad enough, he can pretty much get to ya. :/

When asked about how to tell the difference between a brown bear and a grizzly, the old Alaskan answered, "you walk up to him, punch him in the nose, then climb the nearest tree. If he climbs the tree and eats ya, he's a brown bear. If he knocks the tree down and eats ya, he's a griz."

 

[SoonerP226]

Well, sometime you eat the Bear and sometime the bear eat you. You really don't need a big gun to kill a bear.

https://www.wideopenspaces.com/alaska-man-kills-charging-brown-bear-with-a-9mm-pistol/

There are stories of Eskimo women taking them with .22s, too. I'd take the shot if I had to, but I wouldn't want bet my life on it. Years ago, I read a story (maybe in Field & Stream) wherein the writer had gone to Alaska to hunt bears with a .44Mag. One night, a bear invited himself into the cabin, and the writer (with his .44) and his guide (with a .45-ish caliber rifle) managed to dissuade him from staying for supper, but it wasn't until the bear decided to leave that he skeedaddled.

They found the bear some time later, having expired a surprising distance from the cabin. When they dressed it out, they discovered that the rifle had done the real damage; the .44Mags had all hit home and expanded on impact, but not one of them had penetrated the bear's chest muscles.

 

[dennishoddy]

There are stories of Eskimo women tak8ng them with .22s, too. I'd take the shot if I had to, but I wouldn't want bet my life on it. Years ago, I read a story (maybe in Field & Stream) wherein the writer had gone to Alaska to hunt bears with a .44Mag. One night, a bear invited himself into the cabin, and the writer (with his .44) and his guide (with a .45-ish caliber rifle) managed to dissuade him from staying for supper, but it wasn't until the bear decided to leave that he skeedaddled.

They found the bear some time later, having expired a surprising distance from the cabin. When they dressed it out, they discovered that the rifle had done the real damage; the .44Mags had all hit home and expanded on impact, but not one of them had penetrated the bear's chest muscles.

There are confirmed stories of a 9mm and .45ACP taking out some coastal browns. You just have to know where to shoot them, but when they are coming at you around 35mph from close range, accuracy isn't usually one of the factors of the moment. Pull the danged trigger as fast as you can aiming at center of what is coming at you and hope for the best.
Pistol's will never outperform rifles.

 

[jakeman]

If your a rancher working on a shoestring, which most do, the loss of cattle can be a make or break issue.
Wolves killed 243 livestock, including 154 cattle, 88 sheep and one horse, in 2016 for the state of Wyoming.
I didn't look for any current numbers. I think the state does pay the ranchers for confirmed wolf kills of livestock.

Do you know the state reimbursement rate for livestock killed by wolves in Wyoming? It's 7 times the market rate. Lion & bear depredation brings 3.5 times the market rate.

Seems to me if a rancher is working on a shoestring, having wolves take a bunch of your cattle might be not so terrible, if you were planning on selling them anyway. The ranchers in Wyoming are not suffering financially because of the loss of livestock to wolves. Quite the contrary, the state is compensating them more than fairly.

The myths surrounding wolves in the West aren't likely to ever go away, but removing an apex predator and a keystone species is never a good idea, and reintroducing them into Yellowstone and properly managing them there and in the surrounding states will always be a good thing.

 

[dennishoddy]

Do you know the state reimbursement rate for livestock killed by wolves in Wyoming? It's 7 times the market rate. Lion & bear depredation brings 3.5 times the market rate.

Seems to me if a rancher is working on a shoestring, having wolves take a bunch of your cattle might be not so terrible, if you were planning on selling them anyway. The ranchers in Wyoming are not suffering financially because of the loss of livestock to wolves. Quite the contrary, the state is compensating them more than fairly.

The myths surrounding wolves in the West aren't likely to ever go away, but removing an apex predator and a keystone species is never a good idea, and reintroducing them into Yellowstone and properly managing them there and in the surrounding states will always be a good thing.

Why would they pay them 7 times market rate? I'm not disagreeing but that sounds silly.

 

[MacFromOK]

Why would they pay them 7 times market rate? I'm not disagreeing but that sounds silly.

Ha! Have any idea how much the gov'mint paid dairy farmers a few decades ago to NOT produce all the milk they could, and to NOT sell heifers?

Here's a hint: $100+ PER DAY back in the early '80s.

This is first-hand info from a dairy farmer in north Texas when he refused to sell a friend of mine a breeding age heifer (I was buying newborn bull calves to bottle-feed). He said selling the heifer wasn't worth jeopardizing his government payout of over $100 per day.

"Frugality" isn't in the Washington DC dictionary (along with "common sense" and a lot of other words)...