Forum Index > Stewardship > Grizzly bear kills mother and daughter
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
Sky Hiker
Member
Member


Joined: 03 Feb 2007
Posts: 837 | TRs
Location: outside
Sky Hiker
  Top

Member
PostThu Nov 29, 2018 3:14 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
https://globalnews.ca/news/4705573/yukon-mother-daughter-killed-grizzly-bear-remote-cabin/
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Sky Hiker
Member
Member


Joined: 03 Feb 2007
Posts: 837 | TRs
Location: outside
Sky Hiker
  Top

Member
PostThu Nov 29, 2018 3:16 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Jim Shockey's reply:










Jim Shockey

2 hrs ·
...

This will be a long one. A really long one.

Right now I am deeply saddened and very angry.

We are so sorry for the loss of Valerie and Adele and extend our deepest sympathies to Gjermund Roesholt...Valerie’s partner, Adele’s Father and who is a survivor of this tragedy and to their family, friends and community. You are all in our thoughts and prayers.

Two days ago, I received a call, asking permission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to use one of our cabins at Einerson Lake, in our Yukon Rogue River Outfitting Territory. If you have followed our Hunting Adventures TV show, you will have seen many episodes filmed at that camp.

With that phone call, I learned of the horrific tragedy that had just occurred at Einerson Lake, that by now, most of you will have heard about from the Mainstream Media. A grizzly bear, attacked and killed a young mother, Valerie Theoret and her beautiful 10-month old baby girl Adele.

The deep sadness I will deal with in my own way, with time helping to numb the horror I feel at such an incomprehensible, senseless and preventable loss of life.

The anger, I will deal with right now, specifically the “preventable” part of this tragic event.

I had a long post, that I’d written immediately after receiving the phone call, before this all hit the mainstream news outlets, but I decided not to post it. I decided to take a breather, to cool down before I pushed the “Send” button.

Unfortunately, I have not cooled down.

I am still livid at this senseless loss of human life in “My House” and on “My Watch.”

A few years back, you may remember, we aired an episode from this very same Einerson Lake, where one guide had to shoot an kill a grizzly bear as it tried to break into another guide cabin, obviously with the intent to kill and eat the person inside that cabin. The “Rest of the Story” is that my guides shot 17-times, the previous afternoon, around, over and beside that grizzly, trying to haze it away from the camp.

In spite of the fact that that bear was obviously a threat to humans, my guides did not shoot the bear itself, because they are law-abiding citizens and it would have been a serious violation of the Yukon Wildlife Regulations to kill the bear, without a direct threat to property or life.

Instead, my guides literally had to wait until the grizzly made its attempt to kill a human, before they could legally kill this problem bear. It is in essence, the “Rules of Engagement” that we are forced, by law, to live with in the wilderness areas of the Yukon and British Columbia. Rules of Engagement, that someone who has never faced a dangerous bear, wrote TO SAVE THE LIFE OF THAT GRIZZLY AND OTHER GRIZZLY BEARS, not to save the lives of the human beings living and working in remote areas.

After that unfortunate incident at Einerson Lake and many other close calls with the grizzlies in that general area of the Yukon, close encounters, I warned everyone who I could reach, that “We are facing a grizzly bear plague in British Columbia and the Yukon.” And we informed the officials in charge of the highly regulated grizzly bear harvest quotas, that more grizzlies needed to be killed in the wilderness areas, particularly in that “Grizzly Bear Management Zone” that includes Einerson Lake. In fact, I predicted that someone was going to get hurt if something wasn’t done to deal with the grizzly bear plague.

Now this prediction has come to pass, in the most tragic way.

Was it preventable? I believe yes, absolutely, but I know I can’t say that, I can only say, yes, probably.

Even back in August of this year, it is highly likely that I personally saw the bear that killed this young lady and her beautiful baby girl. But due to the regulations, I was not allowed to kill a grizzly bear at Einerson Lake this year. Licensed hunters are allowed to take one grizzly bear, every three years in the Yukon. Since I took an old, nearly toothless grizzly boar, aged by biologists at over 20-years, back in 2016, I could not shoot a grizzly at Eierson Lake when I hunted there this year. If I could have, there is a probability that I would have killed that grizzly bear three months before it killed Valerie and Adele.

Further to this, in spite of my constant battle to try and have the Grizzly bear quota raised in that remote region, we have only been allowed by law, to harvest from one to three male grizzlies per year, on average, over the 15 or so years that I’ve owned the Rogue River Outfitting Territory. For the record, the Grizzly Bear Management Zone that Einerson Lake is situated in, encompasses over 4000 square kilometres. IF the grizzly quota had been increased, to a level that it must be to prevent tragedies like this from happening, there is a high probability, that one of our Rogue River clients would have killed that grizzly long before it had the opportunity to kill Valerie and Adele.

Here is the part that really gets me angry. Right now, as I write this, there are people out there, who believe animals have rights and who are celebrating this horrific tragedy. They will say to each other, in their nasty little covens, that Valerie and Adele simply reaped what they sowed. This was a family of trappers, a family of hunters. They deserved what they got.

I am angered and outraged. So should every sentient human being be.

These same people will be out tomorrow, raising money to stop hunting around the world and they will lie to do so. They will “personify” wild animals, give them cute names and show out of context photos of suffering animals, and they will tell people that hunting is “inhumane” that hunters are evil. They will tell this to concerned citizens who are not aware of that hunting is in fact the best and only way to manage wildlife populations in many parts of the world. They will not mention that hunters are this world’s greatest stewards of wildlife. The will not talk about the billions of dollars hunters have spent to protect wildlife, to raise wildlife populations here in North America, to historic highs.

In their dark recesses, they will compose and send death threats to hunters and their families. They will bully and vilify young ladies who follow an outdoor lifestyle. And then in public, they will lie about the populations of grizzly bears. They will say they are “endangered” and they will pull at the heart strings of uninformed, caring people, who mostly live in urban centers far removed from the realities of grizzly bear management and conservation.

And as they cry…they will reach into these well-intentioned people’s pockets to finance their next anti-hunting project, NOT to actually use the funds to help wildlife populations thrive and increase as hunters have done.

This sickens me.

Yesterday, I was called for an interview by our own Canadian network, CTV, asking me questions about this horrible tragedy. I told them about the grizzly bear plague, that there are too many grizzly bears in British Columbia and the Yukon. I told them how we’d warned that someone was going to get hurt or worse in that part of the world. I told them about the onerous “Rules of Engagement” for problem grizzly bear encounters in both British Columbia and the Yukon Territory.

And when they asked me “Why I thought this grizzly attacked” I told them this grizzly was no different than any grizzly. It attacked because it is an apex predator and apex predators kill anything and everything they consider “prey.” And when you regulate grizzly harvest numbers to the point that they lose their “fear” of human beings, then human beings will absolutely become “prey” to grizzly bears.

And I told them that this wasn’t a “one off” situation, THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING.

When the report on CTV came out yesterday evening, instead of my personal, feet on the ground at Einerson Lake, answers to their questions, they quoted an “Expert”, the “grizzly bear recovery co-ordinator” for the US Fish and Wildlife service, from Missoula, Montana. An expert who “has investigated the last eight fatal grizzly bear attacks in the United States.”

This gentleman said that it was “important to try to understand why it happened…” “…through careful re-creation of the events.”

He said…”Was it in poor shape? Was he old? Did he have bad teeth?” And that these things would give information about the “…potential motivation of the bear.”

He added that grizzly bears “…become stressed while looking for food at this time of the year.”

Stressed? Motivation? Understand?

WHERE IS THE COMMON SENSE TODAY???????!!!!

This WAS NOT A HUMAN BEING WITH A SAD SOCIAL ISSUE!!!!

This bear was a GRIZZLY BEAR!

It killed because it is a predator!

IT KILLED VALERIE AND ADELE BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT GRIZZLY BEARS DO!

I’m venting. Senseless and preventable tragedies don’t bring out the best in me.

Today as I write this, there are politicians in power, who know absolutely, that they have done “wrong” to remain in power, they have purposefully catered to the populist majority urban vote, instead of doing what is right for the minority of people who live in the rural areas of our countries. It’s called “demagoguery” and recently I’ve posted about exactly this on the new Canadian federal gun control regulations about to be enacted.

In British Columbia, the one common sense method to control the rising and likely out of control grizzly bear population, hunting, was recently banned for 100% political reasons. I believe the official statement said something to the effect that this ban was put in place, because grizzly bear hunting was no longer socially acceptable to the majority of British Columbians. This was doing “wrong” simply to stay in a position of power, and the politicians responsible cannot reasonably deny it.

These politicians were told there was no biological reason for banning the hunt, the grizzly bear population was stable and even growing. And the politicians were warned that increasing grizzly bear populations, would inevitably result in human\grizzly conflict and tragedy, loss of human life. A senseless waste of human life. And yet, knowing that people in rural areas would die, savaged by grizzly bears, because of their decision, they enacted the law anyway. Enacted the law to remain in their position of power?

So here is the question that I would really like answered. Who will be accountable when that tragedy happens in British Columbia? Who takes responsibility? Who will say, “Yes, we were warned, but we felt the horror this person or persons (in the case of Valerie and Adele) was simply the cost of doing business…the cost of us staying in power.”

What government official will stand up and say, “Yes, it was me. I’m the one who decided grizzly bear harvest quotas should remain low, in spite of the fact that I was warned far in advance, by the people who actually live and work in that area, that a tragedy such as has just happened to Valerie and Adele, was going to happen in that area.”

Will any government employee or elected politician stand up and say, “Yes, I was warned a tragic loss of life would result in my making this law, but I decided that it was in the better interests of the urban public I serve, to have more grizzly bears in the areas that rural people live and work.”
Who do we hold accountable?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
wanderwild
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 304 | TRs
Location: Seattle, WA
wanderwild
  Top

Member
PostThu Nov 29, 2018 5:32 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
The problem is that Joe's point, while valid in context and in emotionality, is what wipes species off the planet. It is why these animals cease to exist in 99% (exact number not known) of their original habitat. It happened ravenously throughout the 1800's and much of the 1900's, because most of our population was expanding into the wild west and thus dealing with it's challenges. At some point we need to leave some of the "wild west" as is.

If we don't want this to happen again, we should increase hunting quotas until it never happens again. In other words, eventually kill all bears.

Sound like a good idea?

That being said, no one "deserves" it, and shame on people for sending death threats to hunters like Joe says in his response. That's not acceptable in practice and it comes from ignorance-based hatred.

Another, and I believe important point: An innocent person was killed by unnecessary violence from another human in some big city today. There are dangers to being alive, such as you might die.

--------------
"Whatever your mountain, climb on."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 9568 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostThu Nov 29, 2018 7:13 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
no idea what the problem is, but the page on that link will not load.

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
moonspots
Happy Curmudgeon



Joined: 03 Feb 2007
Posts: 1911 | TRs
Location: North Dakota
moonspots
  Top

Happy Curmudgeon
PostThu Nov 29, 2018 8:57 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
wanderwild wrote:
The problem is that Joe's point, while valid in context and in emotionality, is what wipes species off the planet.

That isn't what he is advocating, and you know it! Hunting as a means to manage the population and to re-instill well deserved fear in the animals, not extinction, is his point.

Good grief....

--------------
"Out, OUT you demons of Stupidity"! - St Dogbert, patron Saint of Technology
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
monorail
Member
Member


Joined: 06 May 2012
Posts: 230 | TRs

monorail
  Top

Member
PostThu Nov 29, 2018 10:58 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Quote:
IF the grizzly quota had been increased, to a level that it must be to prevent tragedies like this from happening, there is a high probability, that one of our Rogue River clients would have killed that grizzly long before it had the opportunity to kill Valerie and Adele.

Shockey seens to be saying the quota should be so high that any given grizzly would have a "high probability" of being killed by one of his clients. Obviously that would mean extinction within a few years.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Bernardo
Member
Member


Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Posts: 1890 | TRs
Location: out and about in the world
Bernardo
  Top

Member
PostFri Nov 30, 2018 5:10 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Very sorry to hear about these tragic deaths.  Where grizzlies exist, people also need to have a healthy fear.  The main theme of my grizzly posts has been to try to accurately assess the risk from the layman's perspective.  Some might say, two lives don't mean much in the grand scheme.  My concern generally is that the pro-grizzly camp understates the risks and the required defensive actions in order to advance their agenda.  Can you be casually walking about in grizzly territory?  Probably not.  That needs to be considered as a cost.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MesiJezi
Member
Member


Joined: 17 May 2016
Posts: 75 | TRs
Location: Seattle
MesiJezi
  Top

Member
PostFri Nov 30, 2018 6:34 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
No, not that either. He's speaking about specific bears in a specific remote area. Makes sense, and there's no reason to misconstrue the motives here.

We're talking about population management, not elimination. "Animal" predators naturally manage the populations of other animal predators. It's foolish for humans not to do the same.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
wanderwild
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 304 | TRs
Location: Seattle, WA
wanderwild
  Top

Member
PostFri Nov 30, 2018 11:57 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
moonspots wrote:
wanderwild wrote:
The problem is that Joe's point, while valid in context and in emotionality, is what wipes species off the planet.

That isn't what he is advocating, and you know it! Hunting as a means to manage the population and to re-instill well deserved fear in the animals, not extinction, is his point.

Good grief....

Did I say that is what he is advocating!? If you had actually read the sentence you're quoting, you would see I'm talking about unintended consequences... It's right there in the quote.

Good grief...

--------------
"Whatever your mountain, climb on."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
wanderwild
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 304 | TRs
Location: Seattle, WA
wanderwild
  Top

Member
PostFri Nov 30, 2018 12:02 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MesiJezi wrote:
"Animal" predators naturally manage the populations of other animal predators. It's foolish for humans not to do the same.

Yeah because humans have never "managed" a population of animals...  dizzy.gif

--------------
"Whatever your mountain, climb on."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
JimmyBob
Member
Member


Joined: 22 Jun 2018
Posts: 16 | TRs
Location: Maple Valley, WA
JimmyBob
  Top

Member
PostFri Nov 30, 2018 1:09 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Not sure who those people are.

It is sad. Things happen.

Don't want to ever be harmed by a wild animal? Keep away from them. It is simple.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Stefan-K
Member
Member


Joined: 10 Aug 2009
Posts: 487 | TRs
Location: seattle
Stefan-K
  Top

Member
PostFri Nov 30, 2018 7:07 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
That is a horrible thing to happen to anyone, my condolences.

I have no idea who Jim Shockey is, so I checked out his site:

CHOOSE EXHILIRATION
CHOOSE UN-TAMED WILD
CHOOSE ADVENTURE

it says boldly on the home splash page as a video of a hunter stalking a moose plays in the background...


I read his rant posted above and it made me feel a bit ill... the way he puts down people who don't think like him and his blatant emotional leveraging of the death of a mother and child to further his own agenda.
Great for him and his hunting enterprise pocketbook if the grizzly quota is upped...

He keeps saying all grizzlies are nothing but predators (so obviously they deserve to be shot...), and yet he and his clients would love nothing more than to go out and stalk and kill grizzly bears... in other words, be predators.

He also makes no bones about parading his ignorance claiming "this grizzly was no different than any grizzly." That's like saying Joe Shockey is no different than Albert Einstein...just another human. Hell, they're all the same...just a bunch o'predators. The news team did well NOT to air his opinion.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
DIYSteve
seeking hygge



Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 12648 | TRs
Location: here now
DIYSteve
  Top

seeking hygge
PostFri Nov 30, 2018 7:34 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Did Joe Shockey do anything to warn users of the cabin? A simple warning sign in the cabin may well have prevented these tragic deaths. So, yes, these deaths were preventable -- by means other than a high powered rifle.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
olderthanIusedtobe
Member
Member


Joined: 05 Sep 2011
Posts: 5994 | TRs
Location: Shoreline
olderthanIusedtobe
  Top

Member
PostFri Nov 30, 2018 8:16 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Selective outrage?  Is this guy as upset every time a human is killed by a drunk driver, or killed by another human using an object that has 3 letters and can't be mentioned?  I seriously doubt it.  I refuse to do a knee jerk response to anything with a wild predator as if it  is a serious public health threat.  We manage to kill ourselves or others on several orders of magnitude more frequently, and most of those deaths are also preventable.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
contour5
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Jul 2003
Posts: 2708 | TRs

contour5
  Top

Member
PostFri Nov 30, 2018 11:21 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Quote:
Since I took an old, nearly toothless grizzly boar, aged by biologists at over 20-years, back in 2016

Why?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Grizzly bear kills mother and daughter
  Happy Birthday LeafEater!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy