Experts dispel Shockys claim.

[RACKER]

I have never heard from any group saying that one of the reasons why alot more bears are causing trouble or danger is that we are getting alot further into the backcountry where bear concentrations are higher.There are not alot of areas left where we as sportsman /outdoor seekers have not travelled into where as even as long ago as 20yrs. I agree that problem bears should be taken out immediately but who is going to decide how many tags should be drawn for if nobody seems to trust the biologists.If the people who live in the remote areas all year have problems with the bears they should be dealing with it directly to protect their lives.It seems that most people that want to have a grizzly mount are the biggest voices to reinstate the hunt.

[huntinstuff]

Originally Posted by Bub

I may be missing something. Unless I am mistaken, this is where the incident took place:



How do you even get to that place to conclude that there is a bear problem in that particular area and that those bears are dangerous to human? (Edit: yes, there is no doubt in my mind those bears are dangerous to people).

This



is pretty ridiculous, in my opinion. Take a look at the map again.

Sure, I can understand this type of statements about the areas where numerous folks go for their daily/weekly run and bump into a bear or two. But this? Take a look at the map again.
.

I have extensively explored that area. We fly from the Stewart River in Mayo. I have definitely walked, slept and ate in places no other human has stood before. Jim even more.

As for griz sightings, yeah there are lots. Ive been there where I’ve seen a different griz daily. Big, small, name it.

Is it remote? Oh yes. About as remote as it gets. The map tells the story. I joke with hunters that “ if we see another human, there was a plane crash.”

It’s breathtaking.

[yukon254]

Originally Posted by huntinstuff

Absolutely. We carry tags for all those animals. But there is a govt trophy fee connected to grizz, caribou and sheep.
Many times we see caribou and, at about $5000 trophy fee, its cheaper to take the animal and pay the fee over booking a caribou hunt itself.

Maybe Im misunderstanding you, but this ^ makes it sound like the Govt. trophy fee for caribou is $5K ?? That might be the trophy fee that Jim charges for a caribou, but YTG doesn't charge that much. The trophy fee nonresident hunters ae charged by YTG for female grizzly bears is only $750.

What is your success rates up there for moose these days? Couple buddies guided for Jim for a few years, and they weren't impressed with moose numbers at all.

[Wolftrapper]

Originally Posted by yukon254

Maybe Im misunderstanding you, but this ^ makes it sound like the Govt. trophy fee for caribou is $5K ?? That might be the trophy fee that Jim charges for a caribou, but YTG doesn't charge that much. The trophy fee nonresident hunters ae charged by YTG for female grizzly bears is only $750.

What is your success rates up there for moose these days? Couple buddies guided for Jim for a few years, and they weren't impressed with moose numbers at all.

I was wondering the same thing. Jim might be just embellishing his cost to his employees.
Where we outfit in the NWT, the costs are not anywhere near $5000. Maybe I misunderstand though. Moose, caribou, grizzly, etc are super thick where we are. We can only take grizzly in self defence though, which no one wants to have to. It's their home and they have never seen man before, guaranteed.

[yukon254]

Originally Posted by Wolftrapper

I was wondering the same thing. Jim might be just embellishing his cost to his employees.
Where we outfit in the NWT, the costs are not anywhere near $5000. Maybe I misunderstand though. Moose, caribou, grizzly, etc are super thick where we are. We can only take grizzly in self defence though, which no one wants to have to. It's their home and they have never seen man before, guaranteed.

A friend of mine hiked through the NWT on his way to hunt the Richardsons for sheep. The bears he saw on that trip was unreal. He ran into a group of green types that were on a long canoe trip. They had, had so many encounters with grizzlies they were out of bear spray and their opinion on bears being harmless furry creatures was changed forever.

[Wolftrapper]

Originally Posted by yukon254

A friend of mine hiked through the NWT on his way to hunt the Richardsons for sheep. The bears he saw on that trip was unreal. He ran into a group of green types that were on a long canoe trip. They had, had so many encounters with grizzlies they were out of bear spray and their opinion on bears being harmless furry creatures was changed forever.

Ya. It gets a little western at times. But that's what makes it so special. Clients who come from all over the world cannot believe how fortunate we are to have such wild, open spaces. Wouldn't change it for nothing.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by huntinstuff

The only one who makes $ off a grizzly killed by a hunter is the Yukon govt

Trophy fee gets paid to them.

We sell moose hunts. The hunter also gets tags for sheep, caribou, grizzly, blackbear, wolverine.

If they kill a caribou or griz or sheep, they pay the govt a trophy fee. We are responsible for collecting that fee for the govt.

So when media types make comments about Jim making $ off it, its an uneducated comment.

Is this a real dry joke?


You mentioned a $5000 caribou trophy fee.
Are you saying the government charges a $5000 fee for a caribou?


I thought the current Yukon Govt. harvest fee for a caribou is $150? $250 for a sheep and $500 for a boar Grizz?

[yukon254]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Is this a real dry joke?


You mentioned a $5000 caribou trophy fee.
Are you saying the government charges a $5000 fee for a caribou?


I thought the current Yukon Govt. harvest fee for a caribou is $150? $250 for a sheep and $500 for a boar Grizz?

You are 100% correct on the YTG harvest fees. While I agree with Jim that we need to take more bears, Jim is making money or he wouldn't be doing it. He doesn't hold the outfitters license in that area either, hes just the money behind it....or I should say his sponsors are...

[Bub]

Originally Posted by yukon254

Shockey point was simply that our grizzly population is very high, and our current quota system is making it impossible to manage the population. He is 100% right.

I do not disagree about the grizzly population and that may very well be the case. I simply do not know, so it is not my place to talk about it.

What I am saying is that blaming this particular incident on grizzly overpopulation is simply ridiculous. Jim was talking about rural people in his post but it is not a rural area where it happened, not even close. Sure, there are a few trappers, guides and outfitters who visit the area for various lengths of time. Note that they all know where they are going. Like huntinstuff said, he had spent some time in "places no other human has stood before".

Originally Posted by yukon254

The second point I would make to you is the fact that there are more people out in that wilderness than you think. I personally know three other families that live within the area on your map, and of course lots of prospectors frequent the area as well.

And we are supposed to start shooting bears because people chose to live/go there? I respectfully disagree.

Originally Posted by yukon254

Another point you should consider is statistics....don't believe them. In the last 4 years I have personally killed three grizzly bears in DLP situations. My son had to kill one, and I know of six other bears that were killed by guides, trappers, or prospectors. I reported the incidents I was involved in, but the fact is many don't, especially in BC.

And that is fine by me. Sounds like the problem is working itself out, no? I have nothing against shooting grizzlies that present danger to human. The fact is though, all of them do. Like Jim said in his post, "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.”"

In other words, any grizzly anywhere is a potential danger to humans. It is just a matter of a human showing up at the right place at the right time (or is it the wrong place at the wrong time?). Just because someone chose to fly out to the bear country and got mauled by one, as unfortunate as it is, I do not think it justifies shooting the bears in that particular area. Yes, there are people who think all grizzlies and even all predators should be eradicated for various reasons... Well, I do not agree with that point of view.

Why wouldn't I believe these statistic? Were there more than 3 deaths in Yukon caused by a Grizzly bear in the last 22 years? The only thing I am wondering about is why it is cut by the last 22 years instead of going farther than that.

Again, do not get me wrong, I have nothing at all against trappers, outfitters, prospectors or whoever else chooses to visit the area. I myself canoed hundreds of kilometers in areas where not many people stepped before (not in the written history, anyway). Not once I expected the area to be cleared of bears or anything else prior to me going there.

Lastly, I read Shockey's whole post (IronNoggin did a favour to us all and posted Jim's complete post in this thread). To be completely honest, I did not find it inspiring. In fact, I lost him where he started rumbling about "there are people out there, who believe animals have rights and who are celebrating this horrific tragedy" Really? The guy thinks that there are people out there who just savour the joy of a woman and her baby being killed by a bear... And then those people will use this story to raise funds to help the bears... Anyway, he may have been right about the politics and whatnot. Otherwise, if the post was not intentional to imply what he did, he should have waited longer to cool down as he tried to begin with, according to the post.

His last question was "Who do we hold accountable?" Accountable for what exactly? People getting killed by bears out in the middle of nowhere, quite literally, at bears' country?

[Bub]

Originally Posted by huntinstuff

I have extensively explored that area. We fly from the Stewart River in Mayo. I have definitely walked, slept and ate in places no other human has stood before. Jim even more.

As for griz sightings, yeah there are lots. Ive been there where I’ve seen a different griz daily. Big, small, name it.

Is it remote? Oh yes. About as remote as it gets. The map tells the story. I joke with hunters that “ if we see another human, there was a plane crash.”

It’s breathtaking.

I bet it is breathtaking. We actually planned to get out to that particular area twice a few years back but some things never worked out. Still hoping to make it out that way. One day... Maybe, lol.

[58thecat]

What's an "expert"?

Heard of them just never met one.....

Kinda like a Sasquatch?

[Adrenaline101]

Originally Posted by Bub

Lastly, I read Shockey's whole post (IronNoggin did a favour to us all and posted Jim's complete post in this thread). To be completely honest, I did not find it inspiring. In fact, I lost him where he started rumbling about "there are people out there, who believe animals have rights and who are celebrating this horrific tragedy" Really? The guy thinks that there are people out there who just savour the joy of a woman and her baby being killed by a bear...

I hate to say it, but from what I've seen come out of the gutters of the internet is he's 100% correct on this. There are people so ignorantly blinded that they spew this kind of crap all day long. On several postings I saw hateful comments a dozen times over. All of Jim's facts might not be dead on but I certainly don't think he's using this issue solely for his personal agenda.

[KegRiver]

Anyone who thinks that all Grizzlies are a threat to people simply don't know what they are talking about.

All Bears may have the potential to become a threat, but then, so do Moose.

What makes a Bear a threat is a Sow protecting her cubs, a bear that feels threatened or a bear that has learned to see humans as a food source.

64 years of living in Bear country has taught me that.

I've had my share of Bear encounters, both Black and Grizzlies. Only twice in my life have I had a Bear try to take me out, and both times it was a Black, not a Grizzly.

What authorities fail to realize is that one Bear in a population can become a threat without all Bears becoming a threat. And that eliminating the wrong Bear does nothing to eliminate the threat.

F&W officers know this but their bosses in office towers do not. And biologists don't necessarily know it either.

Jim Shocky knows this because he lives and works in Bear country. F&W officers know it for the same reason.
But people who never spend time in wilderness Bear territory or who only occasional visit such territory know a lot less about Bears then they think they know.

Books, movies and Zoo Bears have their place, but to actually know what Bears are about one has to live among them for years, and even then, there are things to be learned about Bears. Or any wildlife for that matter.

Which is why the people studying Gorillas do so in the jungle, not in an office tower. And still, after decades on every day months at a time observations researchers are still learning new things about Gorillas.

How much more is there to be learned about Grizzlies?

I'd trust Jim Shocky's word more then 99.9 percent of the people who say they know more then he does.

[yukon254]

Originally Posted by Bub

I do not disagree about the grizzly population and that may very well be the case. I simply do not know, so it is not my place to talk about it.

What I am saying is that blaming this particular incident on grizzly overpopulation is simply ridiculous. Jim was talking about rural people in his post but it is not a rural area where it happened, not even close. Sure, there are a few trappers, guides and outfitters who visit the area for various lengths of time. Note that they all know where they are going. Like huntinstuff said, he had spent some time in "places no other human has stood before".


And we are supposed to start shooting bears because people chose to live/go there? I respectfully disagree.


And that is fine by me. Sounds like the problem is working itself out, no? I have nothing against shooting grizzlies that present danger to human. The fact is though, all of them do. Like Jim said in his post, "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.”"

In other words, any grizzly anywhere is a potential danger to humans. It is just a matter of a human showing up at the right place at the right time (or is it the wrong place at the wrong time?). Just because someone chose to fly out to the bear country and got mauled by one, as unfortunate as it is, I do not think it justifies shooting the bears in that particular area. Yes, there are people who think all grizzlies and even all predators should be eradicated for various reasons... Well, I do not agree with that point of view.

Why wouldn't I believe these statistic? Were there more than 3 deaths in Yukon caused by a Grizzly bear in the last 22 years? The only thing I am wondering about is why it is cut by the last 22 years instead of going farther than that.

Again, do not get me wrong, I have nothing at all against trappers, outfitters, prospectors or whoever else chooses to visit the area. I myself canoed hundreds of kilometers in areas where not many people stepped before (not in the written history, anyway). Not once I expected the area to be cleared of bears or anything else prior to me going there.

Lastly, I read Shockey's whole post (IronNoggin did a favour to us all and posted Jim's complete post in this thread). To be completely honest, I did not find it inspiring. In fact, I lost him where he started rumbling about "there are people out there, who believe animals have rights and who are celebrating this horrific tragedy" Really? The guy thinks that there are people out there who just savour the joy of a woman and her baby being killed by a bear... And then those people will use this story to raise funds to help the bears... Anyway, he may have been right about the politics and whatnot. Otherwise, if the post was not intentional to imply what he did, he should have waited longer to cool down as he tried to begin with, according to the post.

His last question was "Who do we hold accountable?" Accountable for what exactly? People getting killed by bears out in the middle of nowhere, quite literally, at bears' country?

Im not quite sure what your point is? Jim nor anyone else ever said bears should be eradicated. His point was that the Yukon quota is to low....we should be taking more bears....he is 100% right.

Ironically Yukon Fish Game held a press conference yesterday.....guess what. They told reporters human / bear conflicts were up a whopping 25% in 2018!! Thats a huge increase, and the reason isn't that there are more people out in the bush, its because our bear population is increasing by leaps and bounds. BC is seeing the same thing. A friend of mine saw 36 different grizzly bears last fall, and he works full time and only gets out on the weekends. I took two grizzlies last fall in areas we normally see few. The outfit I work for took 8 total.....a normal year is 3 or 4.

When Jim said that there are people out there who were celebrating this tragedy again he was 100% correct. If you would have read the original CBC article you would know this. People commented on the article and some actually said it outright......it was sickening. So I dont think you really know the entire story. Research it a bit before making assumptions.

[Flatlandliver]

https://buff.ly/2SXKIvu

Guide outfitting company launches class-action suit against B.C. ban on grizzly bear hunt

[Imagehunter]

Originally Posted by Bub

The guy thinks that there are people out there who just savour the joy of a woman and her baby being killed by a bear... And then those people will use this story to raise funds to help the bears...

Yes, I have seen plenty of posts like that on facebook from 'animal rights' activists, people saying the baby died because the parents were trappers and that it is unfortunate that karma also struck the baby which 'paid for its parents crimes', together with calls to end hunting bears and end trapping, even though it had nothing to do with the bear attack.
I understand it's a hot topic with hunting bears, but I'll never understand how people think that dead people are something to celebrate. I'm sure people like Shockey are exposed to even more of that crap being a public figure supporting hunting, not just when incidents like this one happen.

[Stinky Buffalo]

Originally Posted by Flatlandliver

https://buff.ly/2SXKIvu

Guide outfitting company launches class-action suit against B.C. ban on grizzly bear hunt

It will be interesting to see if, over time, lawsuits are launched by victims and (families of victims) of bear attacks...