Grizzly bear kills two people in Banff National Park

[chedder]

To add to the above, Global news said the old sow bear was skinny and had bad teeth. So likely desperate for any meal before winter.

[JJolg]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

There may be 60K in NA but in AB there's less than 1000 grizzlies.

https://albertawilderness.ca/issues/...%20973%20bears.

Bs the original study said 934 bears not counting Jasper, Banff and a whole bunch of North eastern Alberta. 5 years of studies to ignore major portions of bear habitat makes a lot of sense

[PepsiFree]

The story doesn’t make much sense.

Two experienced outdoors people who seemingly did everything right were attacked by a bear and used bear spray but still died…

…but the Parks Canada staff who were equipped with a gun (an inferior tool) managed to kill the bear as it was charging them?

IDK, the evidence says that can’t be true. Someone must be lying.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Minnie

Small hijack...that is a beautiful drive up to the Lodge. We try and drive up every couple of years, on our way through to Creston.

Another small hijack...

Snapped this a couple of years ago with my cellphone, without getting eaten by the bear.

.... well because it's dead!!!

or just playing dead..

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The story doesn’t make much sense.

Two experienced outdoors people who seemingly did everything right were attacked by a bear and used bear spray but still died…

…but the Parks Canada staff who were equipped with a gun (an inferior tool) managed to kill the bear as it was charging them?

IDK, the evidence says that can’t be true. Someone must be lying.

What doesn’t make sense? The Parks Canada staff, with the guns, already had an idea of what to expect. Didn’t see anything about the bear spray having been deployed; just that cans were found.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Wormius

What doesn’t make sense? The Parks Canada staff, with the guns, already had an idea of what to expect. Didn’t see anything about the bear spray having been deployed; just that cans were found.

Yes, as I said earlier, there’s a difference between hunting a bear (even if it ends up charging) and surprising one and trying to defend.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by JJolg

Bs the original study said 934 bears not counting Jasper, Banff and a whole bunch of North eastern Alberta. 5 years of studies to ignore major portions of bear habitat makes a lot of sense

That’s not what this says:


Historically, Alberta is estimated to have had 6-9,000 grizzly bears which ranged extensively across the province and well into Saskatchewan and Manitoba. With the disappearance of the plains grizzly in the late 1800’s, grizzly bears are now largely extirpated or transient throughout most of their historical range in Alberta, and currently reside within the Rocky Mountain and Foothills Natural Regions. Alberta’s current population estimate is between 856 and 973 bears….

2021
On March 31, Results of a province-wide DNA census are released, giving an estimated total population of between 865 and 973 grizzlies in Alberta. This is the first census that has been undertaken across the entire province; earlier counts were performed in a subset of BMAs (Bear Management Areas) with population estimates for other areas extrapolated from that more limited census. While the number is higher than previously estimated in some areas, it is still far below the population figure of 1,489 that AWA believes should be the minimum threshold before any upgrading of their conservation status is considered.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Wormius

What doesn’t make sense? The Parks Canada staff, with the guns, already had an idea of what to expect. Didn’t see anything about the bear spray having been deployed; just that cans were found.

You’re telling me these people had time to text but no time to try the bear spray?

IDK sounds like they should’ve stuck to the mall. Typical teens.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Yes, as I said earlier, there’s a difference between hunting a bear (even if it ends up charging) and surprising one and trying to defend.

Sorry, bear spray is supposed to be better than guns, so this can’t be true.

Plus it doesn’t sound like they “surprised” anything considering they’d hung their food properly which indicates they had already made camp. Sounds like the bear approached them.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Sorry, bear spray is supposed to be better than guns, so this can’t be true.

Plus it doesn’t sound like they “surprised” anything considering they’d hung their food properly which indicates they had already made camp. Sounds like the bear approached them.

Sure, still different than hunting. Tell me, did the Parks Canada people know there was a bear there or not - did they have guns out and ready or not?

You are smarter than to suggest that this incident where bear spray was possibly ineffective means studies are wrong.

The rate of injuries for armed versus unarmed people who are attacked is the same.

[Wormius]

I think PF is just on a early Tuesday evening bender.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Sure, still different than hunting. Tell me, did the Parks Canada people know there was a bear there or not - did they have guns out and ready or not?

You are smarter than to suggest that this incident where bear spray was possibly ineffective means studies are wrong.

The rate of injuries for armed versus unarmed people who are attacked is the same.

Tell me, did the people who died know there was a bear or not? Did they think it was a ghost the whole time?

I’m just being a twat because I thought GGG telling people with actual experience they were wrong because the studies said so was funny. I’m just out for a little rip here. I obviously don’t think this disproves any studies, but I do think coming to the conclusion that one is better than the other “cause studies” is stupid without understanding the studies and what they were actually… you know… studying.

Also, what study for rate of injury? Is it the 1883 Alaska one? Cause if so you gotta read that again.

Originally Posted by Wormius

I think PF is just on a early Tuesday evening bender.

My life is an early Tuesday evening bender.

[Codes]

Doug was a committee member and collaborator during my graduate studies at the University of Lethbridge. He was a great mentor and a prolific research scientist. They will be missed. Rest in peace.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Tell me, did the people who died know there was a bear or not? Did they think it was a ghost the whole time?

I’m just being a twat because I thought GGG telling people with actual experience they were wrong because the studies said so was funny. I’m just out for a little rip here. I obviously don’t think this disproves any studies, but I do think coming to the conclusion that one is better than the other “cause studies” is stupid without understanding the studies and what they were actually… you know… studying.

Also, what study for rate of injury? Is it the 1883 Alaska one? Cause if so you gotta read that again.



My life is an early Tuesday evening bender.

No, it’s the one I linked.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Sliver

This is ####ing ridiculous and so disrespectful to the humans with families who just violently lost their lives.



"A tragedy for the bear." What the hell are you talking about? What about the deer, moose, elk and dozens of other animals hunters kill every year that would never even contemplate eating...EATING...a human. Is it a tragedy whenever we kill one of those, too? Maybe you just don't even understand what the word 'tragedy' means? FFS. I've seen more sympathy for this ####ing bear today online than for the people.



It's absurd. And it's not just their habitat. It's ours, too. We're allowed to exist.

In the immortal words of AJR:

I kinda feel like two things can be sad

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

No, it’s the one I linked.

… that mentions the Alaska 1883 study?

[JJolg]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

That’s not what this says:


Historically, Alberta is estimated to have had 6-9,000 grizzly bears which ranged extensively across the province and well into Saskatchewan and Manitoba. With the disappearance of the plains grizzly in the late 1800’s, grizzly bears are now largely extirpated or transient throughout most of their historical range in Alberta, and currently reside within the Rocky Mountain and Foothills Natural Regions. Alberta’s current population estimate is between 856 and 973 bears….

2021
On March 31, Results of a province-wide DNA census are released, giving an estimated total population of between 865 and 973 grizzlies in Alberta. This is the first census that has been undertaken across the entire province; earlier counts were performed in a subset of BMAs (Bear Management Areas) with population estimates for other areas extrapolated from that more limited census. While the number is higher than previously estimated in some areas, it is still far below the population figure of 1,489 that AWA believes should be the minimum threshold before any upgrading of their conservation status is considered.

So 900 some in 2009 not counting parks and parts of the north, since that period every biologist agreeing numbers have increased but not to where they had to be. 2021 rolls around were still under that 1000 magical number which keeps them on the list. I dunno seems more like politics to me.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

… that mentions the Alaska 1883 study?

No, that mentioned a 2008 study:

http://www.bear-hunting.com/2019/8/f...-vs-bear-spray

Edit: I see your confusion. There was no 1883 study. There was a 2012 study of bear attacks starting with 1883 mentioned in this article

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

No, that mentioned a 2008 study:

http://www.bear-hunting.com/2019/8/f...-vs-bear-spray

Edit: I see your confusion. There was no 1883 study. There was a 2012 study of bear attacks starting with 1883 mentioned in this article

And the Alaska study… right below it… which is where the injury stat comes from.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

And the Alaska study… right below it… which is where the injury stat comes from.

No, you are misreading that:

In similar study on firearms (Smith et. al. 2012), they were effective 84% with handguns and 76% with rifles to stop bears from undesirable behavior. The study analyzed 269 bear-human conflicts in Alaska from 1883-2009.

This was a 2012 study. The data used in the study was from 1883-2009.