Should the Grizzly bear that killed a man be set free?Lovely27 - 6 Answers
No, I do not believe it was the right decision not to tag or collar the female bear to monitor her location and to identify her in case of any future attacks. The bear may have been acting defensively to protect her offspring, rather than in a predatory mode, but a man is dead nevertheless.
Common sense would dictate that the bear be monitored, at very least, as a precautionary measure. The loss of a human life should be sufficient reason to do so, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the attack.
Oh for crying out loud, the two hikers startled a female and her new cubs. Anyone familiar with the saying "protecting one like a mother bear does her cubs"? When you go into Yellowstone there are signs, notices and pamphlets about hiking saying "Be vigilant.""Watch for animals""During the summer months watch out for bears and their cubs""Do not go near the bison" etc, etc. There was even a sign at the head of the hiking trail that bear signs had been spotted and hike at your own risk. What more do you want the park to do to keep people out of the area? The park is over 2 million acres large and a reasonable, unarmed person would have heeded the signs and found another trail.
The bear did exactly what nature intended her to do. She felt threatened and protected her cubs. The man was not devoured, just slapped around and bitten. The wife was tossed around like a rag doll. Since the bear's actions were defensive, why mark it, track it etc. If anything the park should prohibit hikers in the area for a few more weeks.
I'm not familiar with the case at all, so I'll just wing it. I have mixed feelings. On one hand, I would like to see the balance of nature restored, but from a practical standpoint, this is no longer possible. We, as a species, have loaded too much on one side of the scale and now we have to deal with the consequences. If we were to restore the balance of nature, in most areas, we could not go outside without the chance of being preyed upon by a predator. We've already tried it and now we have cougars attacking joggers and bicyclists, particularly in California. Forget about going to Yellowstone Park, where it's almost as wild as it gets.
On the other hand, our forefathers devoted much time and effort towards putting us on top of the food chain. I kind of like it this way. The bear should have been put in a zoo.
Although the bear here is not at fault as it has only reacted in a natural way, I strongly feel it should have been tagged or collared so that its behavior could be further studied. There is no violation of animal rights when you tag an animal and it is done for its own well being. There are already many instances of Grizzly bears killing humans and the people related to wildlife and its protection should try and avoid such attacks. If the bear is tagged and monitored, one can easily study its behavioral patterns. These days they even tag a few humans even when they are not wrong, so why not a bear?
I think this is a great opportunity they have missed to study the bear. Now they will wait for another attack to happen.
This case is entirely circumstantial. the first few questions that should be asked about this case would be:
1. Were the rangers at Yellowstone following proper safety procedures during and before the time of the accident?
2. Was the victim at a restricted site?
3. Does anyone claim legal ownership of the bear?
These are all questions of liability. Since the bear was not collared, this implies the bear was most likely a wild bear and not trained. Because of this, one cannot hold the bear liable for the death or any punishment.
The bear killed a man, got captured, examined and released into the wild without marking her in any way. Is that the right procedure regardless of who's fault it is?...