Yellowstone grizzly attack --- NPS report

[Billy]

July 2011 grizzly attack in Yellowstone. First YNP fatality from bear attack since 1986. Here's the full report (with some names, addresses, and photos redacted). It's a 46 MB .pdf so it'll take a while to open.
http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/foia/upload/Matayoshi-Fatality-Redacted.pdf

 

[Brambor]

Interesting. Thanks for posting this.

 

[Little Rickie]

...Very Sad

 

[Papa Bear]

Very sad.

One thing I did not see in the report (I might have missed it) is what happened to the bear. I know sometimes bears are killed who have killed people, but a mother with two cubs - seems like the mother was not a man-killer but simply a mother.

Also, don't male grizzlies sometimes kill cubs?

Anyone know what the procedure is in Yellowstone of other parks with Grizzlies? Glacier comes to mind.

BTW: Happy New Years everyone.

 

[DougPaul]

One thing I did not see in the report (I might have missed it) is what happened to the bear. I know sometimes bears are killed who have killed people, but a mother with two cubs - seems like the mother was not a man-killer but simply a mother.

This does appear to be consistent with a defensive attack.

Also, don't male grizzlies sometimes kill cubs?

Yes, sometimes even their own. Mother bears are very defensive around males.

Anyone know what the procedure is in Yellowstone of other parks with Grizzlies? Glacier comes to mind.

A typical procedure is trapping and relocation. The bears often come back for another round, but it only works a few times because the bears learn to avoid the traps. If they continue to be a serious problem, they may be euthanized.

If the attack was determined to be defensive and the bear does not represent an undue continuing threat, it may simply be left alone.

On the other hand, if the attack was predatory or the bear is determined to particularly dangerous, it may be euthanized ASAP.

Doug

 

[SAR-EMT40]

What strikes me as odd in this are the distances involved. If I read this correctly, they viewed the sow 100 yards distant. The couple ran another 500 yards away from the bear before the bear made contact. I cannot see how this is considered a defensive attack. These people were no threat to the bear or the cubs. Just because it wasn't a predatory attack doesn't mean that this bear isn't a serious threat and in my mind thoroughly unpredictable.

And their running away in this case didn't seem to be contributory to the attack in any way. The prey/predator drive doesn't come into play because she didn't attempt to eat either.

Keith

 

[DougPaul]

What strikes me as odd in this are the distances involved. If I read this correctly, they viewed the sow 100 yards distant. The couple ran another 500 yards away from the bear before the bear made contact. I cannot see how this is considered a defensive attack. These people were no threat to the bear or the cubs. Just because it wasn't a predatory attack doesn't mean that this bear isn't a serious threat and in my mind thoroughly unpredictable.

The report says that they ran ~173 yds (520 ft) before contact. (ref summary on page 2 of the pdf)

The bear alerting at 100 yds and starting to run toward them doesn't surprise me. The chase seems a little long, but the tracks indicate that the bear may have turned and stopped (pdf pg 6, "The bear's reaction and know history")

And their running away in this case didn't seem to be contributory to the attack in any way. The prey/predator drive doesn't come into play because she didn't attempt to eat either.

While the bear appears to have started chasing before they started running, the running (and yelling) might have encouraged the bear to continue the chase and attack. (Dropping to the ground and playing dead is the generally recommended defense in such a situation.)

I don't see any reason to suggest that the attack was predatory, but I still think it is consistent with a defensive attack. (The bears also appear to have left the scene just after the attacks.)


This report is just the investigatory report--I couldn't find a conclusion. However, a bit of Googling turned this up: http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/07/yellowstone_bear_attack.php

Hiking trails in the area were closed after the attack. But the bear was given a reprieve. According to the statement:
The initial investigation suggests the sow grizzly acted in a purely defensive nature to protect her cubs. This female bear is not tagged or collared, and does not apparently have a history of aggression or human interaction.

Doug

 

[Maddy]

The report says that they ran ~173 yds (520 ft) before contact. (ref summary on page 2 of the pdf)

The bear alerting at 100 yds and starting to run toward them doesn't surprise me. The chase seems a little long, but the tracks indicate that the bear may have turned and stopped (pdf pg 6, "The bear's reaction and know history")


While the bear appears to have started chasing before they started running, the running (and yelling) might have encouraged the bear to continue the chase and attack. (Dropping to the ground and playing dead is the generally recommended defense in such a situation.)

I don't see any reason to suggest that the attack was predatory, but I still think it is consistent with a defensive attack. (The bears also appear to have left the scene just after the attacks.)


This report is just the investigatory report--I couldn't find a conclusion. However, a bit of Googling turned this up: http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/07/yellowstone_bear_attack.php


Doug

I was relieved to read that the bear was given a reprieve.
It is a terrible tragedy that a human life was lost, but
173 yards doesn't seem like much when one is referring to a grizzly mom.

I was thinking of how difficult it would be to suppress the urge to just take off at a run, but I think I would take my chances on playing dead. A human is never going to outrun an angry griz mom who feels her cubs are in danger.

 

[Billy]

I was relieved to read that the bear was given a reprieve...

The bear is dead.

 

[Maddy]

Sometimes these incidents have more than one tragic tragic ending. At least the cubs will be cared for.

 

[SAR-EMT40]

The report says that they ran ~173 yds (520 ft) before contact. (ref summary on page 2 of the pdf)

The bear alerting at 100 yds and starting to run toward them doesn't surprise me. The chase seems a little long, but the tracks indicate that the bear may have turned and stopped (pdf pg 6, "The bear's reaction and know history")


While the bear appears to have started chasing before they started running, the running (and yelling) might have encouraged the bear to continue the chase and attack. (Dropping to the ground and playing dead is the generally recommended defense in such a situation.)

I don't see any reason to suggest that the attack was predatory, but I still think it is consistent with a defensive attack. (The bears also appear to have left the scene just after the attacks.)


This report is just the investigatory report--I couldn't find a conclusion. However, a bit of Googling turned this up: http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/07/yellowstone_bear_attack.php


Doug

On page 95 of the report there is a map. GPS coordinates where taken and overlayed onto the map. There was no mention that the bear dragged the victim, didn't see that listed but, the distances measured are 100 meters to where the victims saw the sow. There is another 500 meters from where they started running till where the body was. Something doesn't compute.

Also. Dropping and falling and playing dead is the general rule for physical contact with a Grizzly. I still contend that 100 meter distance for an attack is not a reasonable distance for a normal bear to feel threatened.

That was NOT a defensive attack. No one would or should have expected that. That bear for lack of a better word, was nuts. Nothing it did in that attack was reasonable. My personal opinion was that it was going to do this again. And according to the report it did, a month later. This was a rogue bear.

Keith

 

[DougPaul]

On page 95 of the report there is a map. GPS coordinates where taken and overlayed onto the map. There was no mention that the bear dragged the victim, didn't see that listed but, the distances measured are 100 meters to where the victims saw the sow. There is another 500 meters from where they started running till where the body was. Something doesn't compute.

The report could be inconsistent. I'm not going to wade through it again...

I still contend that 100 meter distance for an attack is not a reasonable distance for a normal bear to feel threatened.

I have read of them alerting at greater distances.

That was NOT a defensive attack. No one would or should have expected that. That bear for lack of a better word, was nuts. Nothing it did in that attack was reasonable. My personal opinion was that it was going to do this again. And according to the report it did, a month later. This was a rogue bear.

The information available at the time as written up in this report (the second attack was still in the future) is IMO consistent with a defensive attack. Leaving the wife (who played dead) unharmed is also consistent with a defensive attack. The rangers (who probably know more about this than both of us put together) also decided that it was probably defensive.

We don't know the details of the second attack, so we can only guess at its meaning. For all we know, the second victim surprised the bear at close range or threatened a cub. Or maybe the bear was just extra-sensitive, but it isn't like the bear was going into town and attacking people.

Whatever... At this point we are just voicing differing opinions with no actions dependent upon them--I suggest that we agree to disagree and move on.

Doug

 

[SAR-EMT40]

I have read of them alerting at greater distances.

The rangers (who probably know more about this than both of us put together) also decided that it was probably defensive.

Whatever... At this point we are just voicing differing opinions with no actions dependent upon them--I suggest that we agree to disagree and move on.

Doug

Sorry. I can agree to disagree but my opinion is that this was a dangerous animal and should have been put down. As far as how much the rangers "know". I consider them to be complicit in the second killing. They are not impartial observers and they have a dog in the fight. I take their "knowledge" with a grain of salt. Especially considering the outcome.

And as a matter of terminology. This bear didn't alert. It ran down and killed one person and eventually for whatever reason killed another.

As far as actions dependent on them. I will know better that an action by a bear at that distance, might be far out of proportion to the threat perceived. My actions now, would of course be proportional and defensive and possibly at greater distance. And yes, I know these are Grizzlies not Blacks.

So on all of that yes, we may need to agree to disagree.

Keith

 

[Bob]

Wwhs?

what would Herrero say?

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Tourist Season warning / update (NPR)

Tim