Use Promo Code Randy for 20% off OutdoorClass

Shockey: Grizzly attack/kill of young mother and her child

Emotional responses are pretty easy to see through.

Will give him a little bit of a pass, cause he probably feels some guilt from just the possibility he could have prevented it. Slim chance, but that might eat at him on an emotional level non of us can really understand.

Live or hunt in wild places, the nature of the natural world is going to punch you in the teeth eventually, just like the urban jungle.

There's no preventing everything, even if Grizzlies where managed more. But better management could lead to better health of the grizzly population and give them a little more fear of humans. Which in turn would be better for the grizzly and humans alike. To turn everything against or for, anti or pro anything, takes it to extremism.

A wolf, a grizzly, a deer, an elk, etc, they should all be managed for balance. There's no balance with eliminating them from the landscape or letting them remain protected with no scrutiny, when it's not good for all inhabitants of the ground we all share.

The frustration comes from having booming populations, that have no factual scientific or biological reasoning for being protected. Both ends of the spectrum get emotionally invested in self interests. But when those self interests are tipped one sided, by groups that rarely have any skin in the game, the ones that do have skin in the game become resentful. That resentment compounds and erodes trust.

When statements, facts and statistics, don't jive with reality, people who live with critters, being managed outside facts, locals get strongly opinionated and begin the long trek down the road of bitterness to a situation beyond their control. That leads to feeling vulnerable and helpless, nobody likes feeling like that.

There could very well been nothing plausible that could have prevented this tragedy. To live in the what if's or the hypothetical arena leads one along the valley floor on the road to nowhere.

Sad to see conservation, veering towards preservation, which are two totally differing ideals.
 
onpoint said:
Read it again.

"…...........The reason is because hunters are not showing up, hunters don't attend meetings, hunters don't contact the decision makers, we aren't there supporting and defending our wildlife managers. If the only time we show up, is to lash out when something like this happens, we're not going to be effective in much of anything that bears fruit in regard to influencing correct management.

What's always been odd to me, is that the hunting public can take vacation to hunt, fish, go to Disneyland with the old lady and kids, take the kids to travel ball, and every other g-damn thing under the sun...but wont take 5 minutes or spend a single vacation day to attend a meeting, write a letter, sit down with a decision maker etc.

Very few do...and a vast, vast majority don't. Complacency has consequences. This issue will blow over, just like any other, and the same old faces will still be doing 99.5% of the legwork to carry the water for those that would rather go to Disneyland than lift a finger to do anything to help the sport they "love".

Been the same way for as long as I've been involved...and it just doesn't change".
Click to expand...

And again!

Most feel that if they boycott Patagonia, or post links on hunting forums they are doing their part. Takes more the that. Recently we hosted an FWP meeting on the new state wide lion plan. There wasn’t 30 people show up. Most are more comfortable griping on FB and forums about lack of predator management.
 
RobG said:
Why would you think his hunters would have shot that particular bear?
Click to expand...

I should not stereotype, but some guided hunters are not always in the best shape. Shockey's cabin is on the lake, and I think the cabin where the grizzly killed the mother and daughter was also on the lake (unless I read it wrong). Makes sense that hunters would tend to chase bears around the lake, before chasing bears a long ways away. I know that's a bit of a stretch. But, when camped remotely I have always hunted from camp outwards, not hiked 4-5 miles from my remote camp and then started hunting.
 
BuzzH said:
Couple things, and I think you should A: consider your audience and B: Read a bit closer.

First off, where this happened, grizzly hunting IS allowed.

Secondly, Shockey is a glory hound...and even within the article he cant help but beat his chest about the 20 year old BOAR grizzly he killed. The exact bear you shouldn't kill if you're really looking to control grizzly numbers. A bear like that is likely a dominate boar that is protecting a large home range and also killing smaller bears and keeping the population lower. Yes, that's scientifically a proven fact that boars will kill sub-adult bears, females, and each other. If Shockey was so worried about the number of bears, and controlling the population, he should have killed a younger sow that had no cubs. If he was so worried about it, he would also force his clients to kill sows rather than boars or at least sub-adult boars.

Nope, not what he did though, killed a dominate boar so he could sell a picture to a magazine, cable network, or to beat his chest. Yet, he has no problems trying to make himself out to be the hero, for shooting a bear that probably has done more good than harm to control the population...and probably never did anything bad to a human.

Another thing to consider, is that while hunters have a dominate voice in regards to wildlife, we aren't the only voice that is heard. Every citizen has a voice and a right to comment on and choose to support, or not support anything in regard to wildlife, hunting, etc. While I prefer and defend the Science based management of wildlife, doesn't mean that someone else either disagrees with the science or has a different view on how to manage wildlife. It doesn't belong to just the hunting public, and I will tell you, that if you believe there is 100% agreement in anything wildlife related in the hunting/wildlife world, you're either naïve, or don't get out much.

Its also my opinion that hunters should NOT go off the deep end and use these kind of tragedies to push an anti-bear agenda. What we need to do, is double down on correct management and allowing science and proper management to rule the day. Not use it is a vehicle to bash fellow citizens who have a different view in regard to grizzly bears. You stay the course and you leave the bullshit rhetoric alone, in particular if you have a platform like Shockey does. Finally, if you think that the reason that anti-hunters have "gained so much ground" is because we aren't acting like lunatics every time someone is harmed/killed by wildlife, you'd be dead wrong. The reason is because hunters are not showing up, hunters don't attend meetings, hunters don't contact the decision makers, we aren't there supporting and defending our wildlife managers. If the only time we show up, is to lash out when something like this happens, we're not going to be effective in much of anything that bears fruit in regard to influencing correct management.

What's always been odd to me, is that the hunting public can take vacation to hunt, fish, go to Disneyland with the old lady and kids, take the kids to travel ball, and every other g-damn thing under the sun...but wont take 5 minutes or spend a single vacation day to attend a meeting, write a letter, sit down with a decision maker etc.

Very few do...and a vast, vast majority don't. Complacency has consequences. This issue will blow over, just like any other, and the same old faces will still be doing 99.5% of the legwork to carry the water for those that would rather go to Disneyland than lift a finger to do anything to help the sport they "love".

Been the same way for as long as I've been involved...and it just doesn't change.
Click to expand...

We're pretty much in agreement, just frustrated that people who have never stepped off a sidewalk can have so much impact on wilderness and wildlife decisions. Sometime it doesn't feel like we have a significant voice. Here in Maryland, we have a limited draw black bear hunt, in the 4 westernmost counties. In archery season, bowhunters in the 2 westernmost counties can carry a handgun for bear defense if they encounter a bear, but we in the other 2 counties cannot. You can't make this stuff up...
 
mdhunter61 said:
We're pretty much in agreement, just frustrated that people who have never stepped off a sidewalk can have so much impact on wilderness and wildlife decisions. Sometime it doesn't feel like we have a significant voice. Here in Maryland, we have a limited draw black bear hunt, in the 4 westernmost counties. In archery season, bowhunters in the 2 westernmost counties can carry a handgun for bear defense if they encounter a bear, but we in the other 2 counties cannot. You can't make this stuff up...
Click to expand...

If you're going to get involved, and I hope you do, better get over the fact that wildlife and public lands belong to 320 million of your neighbors.

Worry about promoting your view point, presenting your best case, and hope that the decision makers believe the science and facts...all you can do.
 
BuzzH said:
Couple things, and I think you should A: consider your audience and B: Read a bit closer.

First off, where this happened, grizzly hunting IS allowed.

Secondly, Shockey is a glory hound...and even within the article he cant help but beat his chest about the 20 year old BOAR grizzly he killed. The exact bear you shouldn't kill if you're really looking to control grizzly numbers. A bear like that is likely a dominate boar that is protecting a large home range and also killing smaller bears and keeping the population lower. Yes, that's scientifically a proven fact that boars will kill sub-adult bears, females, and each other. If Shockey was so worried about the number of bears, and controlling the population, he should have killed a younger sow that had no cubs. If he was so worried about it, he would also force his clients to kill sows rather than boars or at least sub-adult boars.

Nope, not what he did though, killed a dominate boar so he could sell a picture to a magazine, cable network, or to beat his chest. Yet, he has no problems trying to make himself out to be the hero, for shooting a bear that probably has done more good than harm to control the population...and probably never did anything bad to a human.

Another thing to consider, is that while hunters have a dominate voice in regards to wildlife, we aren't the only voice that is heard. Every citizen has a voice and a right to comment on and choose to support, or not support anything in regard to wildlife, hunting, etc. While I prefer and defend the Science based management of wildlife, doesn't mean that someone else either disagrees with the science or has a different view on how to manage wildlife. It doesn't belong to just the hunting public, and I will tell you, that if you believe there is 100% agreement in anything wildlife related in the hunting/wildlife world, you're either naïve, or don't get out much.

Its also my opinion that hunters should NOT go off the deep end and use these kind of tragedies to push an anti-bear agenda. What we need to do, is double down on correct management and allowing science and proper management to rule the day. Not use it is a vehicle to bash fellow citizens who have a different view in regard to grizzly bears. You stay the course and you leave the bullshit rhetoric alone, in particular if you have a platform like Shockey does. Finally, if you think that the reason that anti-hunters have "gained so much ground" is because we aren't acting like lunatics every time someone is harmed/killed by wildlife, you'd be dead wrong. The reason is because hunters are not showing up, hunters don't attend meetings, hunters don't contact the decision makers, we aren't there supporting and defending our wildlife managers. If the only time we show up, is to lash out when something like this happens, we're not going to be effective in much of anything that bears fruit in regard to influencing correct management.

What's always been odd to me, is that the hunting public can take vacation to hunt, fish, go to Disneyland with the old lady and kids, take the kids to travel ball, and every other g-damn thing under the sun...but wont take 5 minutes or spend a single vacation day to attend a meeting, write a letter, sit down with a decision maker etc.

Very few do...and a vast, vast majority don't. Complacency has consequences. This issue will blow over, just like any other, and the same old faces will still be doing 99.5% of the legwork to carry the water for those that would rather go to Disneyland than lift a finger to do anything to help the sport they "love".

Been the same way for as long as I've been involved...and it just doesn't change.
Click to expand...

Well said. You beat me to it and saved me some typing. I cringed reading his quotes.

What a horrific tragedy for the family.
 
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.
Click to expand...

I really have no idea why people continue to think firing a gun is going to haze an animal away. There is no negative feedback or consequence from it. Ask anyone who has used a propane cannon to keep deer or elk out of a field. It doesn't work. They would have been far better off using some pepper spray and/or other items, such as bean bag rounds, pepper balls, rubber buckshot, etc.
 
Wow, I must be from a different camp. After reading Shockey's response to this terrible happening with the young family, I personally saw nothing "wrong" with his statements to the press. What would his critics say if they, were asked, spur of the moment to make a public statement that would hopefully give comfort to friends and family, and offer an opinion on what steps could be possibly be taken to help prevent this kind of thing from being repeated. Now remember, you were notified last night and you have to have your response ready tomorrow morning. Oh yes, by the way the press will maybe give you 90 seconds air time.
That may seem like a piece of cake to some of us, but from what I have read here, there is little wondering why they called Jim Shockey. He is not only known as an authority on big game around the world, he is know for his caring for people. And I think that once again, for the majority of people, Jim aced it.
As for the accusing Jim of "grandstanding" and "chest beating" etc. I personally did not see any of that. I do however see it, and have for years in a lot of Buzz'z post. Buzz you are the king of telling us all how little we know, and how we need to think and do everything the way you would have it done. Re read your second post on page one and you might, be able to see that you yourself do all of the things you accuse Shockey of.
You got a bad case of Shockey envy. (nothing personal, just a cold scientific fact)
 
My gosh you guys will argue over anything as long as you can bash on someone you dont like. I dont know shockey, dont watch his shows, and dont follow him at all. Honestly just remember him as a guy who kills lots of animals from when I was very young and looked at my dad's magazines.

It's a tragedy and very sad and any and all idea and people bashing you do on this forum/thread changes that zero %. Some of you really ruin this forum a lot of the times. Offer up your ideas instead of just pounding someone else's into dust. Then a discussion of meaning can be had MAYBE.

Prayers and heartfelt sadness goes out to the families. That's all that needs said about it....not all the unwarranted hatred.
 
I though that was a great post. But I also think that the dead woman took her now dead child into a remote wilderness area and was among animals that didn't value them as people but maybe as food. It is those wilderness areas where animals should be. We have here in the lower 48 a situation with wolves. I like wolves but again they will kill you for no other reason than to fill their belly, they belong in wilderness area's. Same with mountain lions. They curbed it in the N.W. quite a bit and a few people out where no predator should have been have been killed, come's as no surprise to me. We enter their country I think we do so at our own risk! They invade ours, it's at their own risk. On the wolves, there's a reason they tried to kill them out years ago, now we see it pop up now and them.

The baby that got killed should never have been there in the first place. The parent's got the mother and her daughter killed by assuming the risk they did. Should she have the right to take that risk? I think yes but let the blame fall where it should, on the parents of that baby girl!

Not having the bear problem here I can only think in terms of the wolf problem we have. I hunt birds with dog's and I don't hunt anywhere with my dogs that have had wolf sighting's. And much as I like wolves I think if I saw one out hunting birds and the opportunity was there I would shoot it. Our government is to blame for allowing them back into civilization! The wolves did not come back here on their own, they were released back in civilization by human idiot's! You go into wilderness and you invade their home, they come into civilization and they invade ours! Trespasser's beware!
 
Don Fischer said:
I though that was a great post. But I also think that the dead woman took her now dead child into a remote wilderness area and was among animals that didn't value them as people but maybe as food. It is those wilderness areas where animals should be. We have here in the lower 48 a situation with wolves. I like wolves but again they will kill you for no other reason than to fill their belly, they belong in wilderness area's. Same with mountain lions. They curbed it in the N.W. quite a bit and a few people out where no predator should have been have been killed, come's as no surprise to me. We enter their country I think we do so at our own risk! They invade ours, it's at their own risk. On the wolves, there's a reason they tried to kill them out years ago, now we see it pop up now and them.

The baby that got killed should never have been there in the first place. The parent's got the mother and her daughter killed by assuming the risk they did. Should she have the right to take that risk? I think yes but let the blame fall where it should, on the parents of that baby girl!

Not having the bear problem here I can only think in terms of the wolf problem we have. I hunt birds with dog's and I don't hunt anywhere with my dogs that have had wolf sighting's. And much as I like wolves I think if I saw one out hunting birds and the opportunity was there I would shoot it. Our government is to blame for allowing them back into civilization! The wolves did not come back here on their own, they were released back in civilization by human idiot's! You go into wilderness and you invade their home, they come into civilization and they invade ours! Trespasser's beware!
Click to expand...

Not sure how to respond to this

There are times we think about moving and then we visit a large town in the East and find things here in the wilderness not all that bad. We ( us and our ancestors ) have lived here for a few 1000 years now and I dare say we feel we belong here. We recognize all those we share the land with, including the black, brown and white bears and so far, even when the odds were in their favor ( before the firearm ) we always killed more of them than they killed us. But you are correct, we could move, but we keep hearing about people being killed by vehicles, and bad guys in town, so we have chosen to take our chances in the wilderness.

But, you are not wrong. They choose their way of life and are responsible for their chooses.

We knew her
 
I agree, the emotional additive was way over the top. Doing the blame game rant against anti hunters was out of line. As an earlier poster pointed out, only two grizzly attacks in such a large area over such a long period doesn't paint the same picture as the almost daily encounter Shockey implies. I think we all know that as an owner/operator of a major outfitting operation in the area, Shockey would benefit financially from an increase in grizzly harvest quota. Those hunts can be upwards of $25K. I am not saying that's what motivated his rant ... but it is a possibility. I'm sure the antis will fire back with that ammo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

atlas
Judge orders new work on Bitterroot grizzly plan
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
atlas
atlas
WyoDoug
Urban Deer In Rawlins, Wyoming, Are Dropping Newborn Fawns On People’s Porches
Replies
19
Views
1K
RemingtonRules
R
Oak
BC Moose and Caribou hunt
4 5 6
Replies
112
Views
10K
Bluffgruff
B
WyoDoug
Grizzly Bear Pulls California Woman from Tent in Montana and Kills Her
Replies
3
Views
740
Sasquatchewan
Sasquatchewan
RG_Adult_Onset_Hunter
Attack on Bear Hunting in Washington. Your hunt is next.
2 3
Replies
41
Views
5K
FI460
FI460

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,009
Messages
1,943,415
Members
34,959
Latest member
Stravic

Share this page

Back
Top