October 24, 2018

Authorities Kill Two Grizzlies Thought to Have Killed a Wyoming Guide and Wounded a Hunter

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

As a result of a grizzly bear attack on two men in Wyoming attending to their elk kill, authorities have killed two grizzlies in response. A necropsy might determine if they are the bears responsible.

However, the media and the animal rights advocates who control it took the opportunity to further promote lies about the grizzly bear and its history.

According to a report published by Newscentermaine that came from USA Today, an advocate for the bears states: “…to protect the last of the tens of thousands of bears who used to roam the territory between the Pacific Ocean and the Great Plains.”

There’s plenty wrong with this statement. First of all, the person quoted refers to the grizzly bears in human terms when they state “bears WHO used to roam.” Bears are not whos. They are animals. A proper usage of our language would be “bears THAT used to roam.”

I also take issue with the statement that there were tens of thousands of grizzly bears that roamed the territory from the Pacific to the Great Plains.

I don’t believe there are “tens of thousands” of bears roaming that region today, but certainly, there are thousands with advocates doing all they can to bring the grizzly population to hundreds of thousands if they could. The difference that exists today vs when, according to some, tens of thousands of bears roamed is that there are millions more people living in this area than did when supposedly tens of thousands of bears did.

But did tens of thousands of grizzly bears ever exist in this region? My reasoning and logical conclusions tell a different story. If there were tens of thousands of grizzly bears in this region as is stated when Lewis and Clark undertook their exploration, it would seem that their journals would have contained stories of bear encounters.

If my memory is correct (and it hasn’t been that long since I read the journals last) there is one incident recorded of a man in the expedition who thought he had a hand or a foot “swiped at” by a bear during the night as it hung outside of his tent.

Forcing the existence of large predators into human-settled landscapes is criminal and in certain circumstances, death and destruction of private property by these predators should be the responsibility of those promoting the growth of tens of thousands of these animals where history indicates never existed in the first place.

One more issue to discuss. This same person was quoted as saying, “Killing more bears will not prevent other bear-hunter conflicts, but it may irrevocably jeopardize the health of the grizzly population around Yellowstone.”

This ignorant, heartless, and senseless statement digs at the heart of the animal protection movement. It does make sense to reason that if there are fewer bears – the result of hunting them – logically, the odds of an encounter with a bear decreases. Will it end all encounters? Of course not.

The sad part of this statement is that it clearly tells us where this person’s priorities exist. They deny a simple math problem of reducing bear numbers but even at the expense of human life, doing anything about the problem “may irrevocably jeopardize the health of the grizzly population…”

Just this morning I was reading one man’s perspective on the government’s forcing of grizzlies and wolves into areas where people live, calling it “unjust and evil.”

At the crux of protecting “endangered species” is the false “best available science” that there once roamed “tens of thousands” of grizzly bears or wolves and that they MUST be restored to those numbers regardless of the human population. That is “unjust and evil.”

The countless journals from explorers and trappers from years ago simply do not support the idealistic theory that wildlife was abundant in the tens of thousands.

Evidently, one man’s life is worth saving two bears. Unjust and evil? You bet!

 

Share