Grizzly bear kills two people in Banff National Park

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Google does say there are 55,000 grizzlies in north America. But your points do stand.

Dunno how I got to those numbers, googled too quickly. Anyways, my point is that their population is not artificially inflated, there are actually way less than there were historically.

Let's try numbers again, in Alberta we have maybe 900 grizzlies (of all ages) and it's said we need 1,000 mature bears to support a healthy population. To have ~1,000 mature grizzlies we need ~2,000 grizzlies according to Alberta Environment Parks.
Sure, maybe some bears were missed in the count but by no means is the population artificially high or is it time to cull.

[shotinthebacklund]

Originally Posted by Torture

Dunno how I got to those numbers, googled too quickly. Anyways, my point is that their population is not artificially inflated, there are actually way less than there were historically.

Let's try numbers again, in Alberta we have maybe 900 grizzlies (of all ages/genders) and it's said we need 1,000 mature bears to support a healthy population. To have ~1,000 mature grizzlies we need ~2,000 grizzlies according to Alberta Environment Parks.
Sure, maybe some bears were missed in the count but by no means is the population artificially high or is it time to cull.

I have seen personally 9 Grizzlies in 256sqKM since september first, and I am not in the considered core range for a grizzly bear. Zero chance you could convince me those numbers are correct for Alberta.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

I have seen personally 9 Grizzlies in 256sqKM since september first, and I am not in the considered core range for a grizzly bear. Zero chance you could convince me those numbers are correct for Alberta.

Alright, you convinced me, I'll trust your single set of anecdotal evidence over Alberta Environment & Parks' province wide DNA census and a trained group of biologists. Good news everyone, the Grizzly population is officially healthy in Alberta! We can update their conservation status from threatened and start the cull.

[shotinthebacklund]

Originally Posted by Torture

Alright, you convinced me, I'll trust your single set of anecdotal evidence over Alberta Environment & Parks' province wide DNA census and a trained group of biologists. Good news everyone, the Grizzly population is officially healthy in Alberta! We can update their conservation status from threatened and start the cull.

I never once stated there should be a cull. Dont put words in your mouth.
Also, to add, I believe the DNA consensus you are referring to is a study conducted more then 10 years ago, and was widely considered limited in scope and had several issues at the time it was done. I have not seen any other studies conducted more recently using dna sampling.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

I never once stated there should be a cull. Dont put words in your mouth.
Also, to add, I believe the DNA consensus you are referring to is a study conducted more then 10 years ago, and was widely considered limited in scope and had several issues at the time it was done. I have not seen any other studies conducted more recently using dna sampling.

They released it in 2021:
https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/provincia...ment-1.5371587

And here's a better summary of the methodology and results:
https://www.stalbertgazette.com/beyo...-bears-3613980

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

Originally Posted by Sliver

So a cull. I suggested that and then these guys started flapping around in circles bellowing about me being "ludicrous," "dumb" and filling the thread with "nonsense." .

My point wasn't for a cull, it was that if any wildlife numbers are out of control, there are proper ways to deal with it. Not dumb hikers with elephant guns.

[shotinthebacklund]

Originally Posted by Torture

They released it in 2021:
https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/provincia...ment-1.5371587

Yes, Looks like they updated a similar study to the one I was referring to. Read the article, and you will see some of the issues we are facing today. A thriving population of apex predators killed only by themselves in the wild. I am not saying a cull is required, However, a tightly managed hunting season is well within means. I personally know a bio involved in BMA 5 that has strong concerns about the population reaching max carrying capacity.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

Keep in mind, A large male grizzly with have a huge territorial range 1500sq kms, where it will hunt and kill bears inside that range. Grizzlies bears require a hell of a lot of space.

Zey require...Lebensraum!!

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by GGG

Is this some sort of sarcastic parody? Usually you will at least look at evidence

We've all probably been guilty of discounting evidence when it doesn't agree with our belief system or lived experience. It happens to the best of us.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by chedder

Your main point stands but there are roughly 25-30,000 grizzlies in Canada and 60,000 in North America. And these numbers could be on the low end as they tent to be elusive.

Well no wonder we keep running into them in the forest.

I wonder if they have better luck getting a site at Two Jake Lake.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GGG

Is this some sort of sarcastic parody? Usually you will at least look at evidence

Um, rude. I did look at the evidence and that's exactly what it says.

Moreover, firearm bearers suffered the same injury rates in close encounters with bears whether they used their firearms or not.

...

Success rates by firearm type were similar with 84% of handgun users (31 of 37) and 76% of long gun users (134 of 176) successfully defending themselves from aggressive bears (Z 1⁄4 1.0664, P 1⁄4 0.2862). When we compared outcomes for people who used their firearm in an aggressive bear encounter (n 1⁄4 229) to those who had firearms but did not use them (n 1⁄4 40), we found no difference in the outcome (G2 1⁄4 0.691, P 1⁄4 0.708), whether the outcome was no injury, injury, or fatality. However, we found a difference in the outcome for bears with regard to firearm use: 172 bears died when people used their firearms, whereas no bears were killed when firearms were not used.

It's also worth noting that this study admits that, based on the way bear-human conflicts are reported, they are likely missing data that would increase the success rate of firearms without increasing the number of human injuries reported:

Therefore, even if more incidents had been made available through the Alaska DLP database, we anticipate that these would have contributed few, if any, additional human injuries. Second, including more DLP records would have increased the number of bears killed by firearms. Finally, additional records would have likely improved firearm success rates from those reported here, but to what extent is unknown.

Worth noting that even with these limitations, the success rate for handguns was 84%, while the success rate for bearspray is 90%, a negligible difference according to the study.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by fotze2

Bears can suck my pouch. Also hikers.

Go play your Playstation, bro.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Um, rude. I did look at the evidence and that's exactly what it says.



It's also worth noting that this study admits that, based on the way bear-human conflicts are reported, they are likely missing data that would increase the success rate of firearms without increasing the number of human injuries reported:



Worth noting that even with these limitations, the success rate for handguns was 84%, while the success rate for bearspray is 90%, a negligible difference according to the study.

Where did you find this study?

[bdubbs]

Stopped reading when the gun debate started up, but what chance does a person have against a bear using a bow and arrow? Say the person regularly trains and is a decent shot...

[Tron_fdc]

Another weird one, there's an ENORMOUS grizzly that shows up in my old neighbours yard on the same day, every year, as it migrates towards Island Lake Lodge.

They're pretty fascinating creatures.
.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

Go play your Playstation, bro.

a little respect

he has forgotten more about this board than you know

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by bdubbs

Stopped reading when the gun debate started up, but what chance does a person have against a bear using a bow and arrow? Say the person regularly trains and is a decent shot...

Not as much of a chance compared to the 'ol thumb up the bum that's for sure.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Where did you find this study?

GGG linked to it above. It has all sorts of limitations and weird data (exclusive to Alaska, going back to 1883, anything from actual data to newspaper clippings, etc.) so I don't know if it's super informative to either side of the debate but it's an interesting read anyway (one of the reasons people failed to use their gun? didn't feel like skinning and butchering the bear and carrying it out of the woods!)

[JJolg]

The original count of grizzly bears was laughably bad and those were the words from a biologist in Montana, not only did it exclude many areas and ignore bears that apparently won’t cross borders to the west or south it was politically motivated. The yearly counts they did for goats and sheep were more organized. Now as a hunter that has no interest in hunting grizzly bears I will team you the eastern slopes needs it or more bears will be pushed to the prairies and killed. These are younger bears, having an allocated hunt helps lower larger boar numbers which allows younger bears to thrive and not get pushed out and killed. As for Under a 1000 not even during the initial count were we that low. I can show you a drainage where you’ll see 4-6 different bears in a day of glassing… one drainage according to the study that’s all the bears within 80 or so sq km lol

I can drive 12 km further north where I’ve got 6 or 7 cameras setup, more bears. Fnw moved out a few that were causing trouble at a near campground. The only thing I’m certain of is they have no interest in knowing the actual numbers or spending the resources to find out. The more it’s ignored the more conflict there will be

[Tron_fdc]