I'm inclined to believe that we take risks traveling in the wilderness and a bear like this with no known history of human aggression shouldn't be killed.
I agree with that, 100%. Except for the no known history of human aggression part. What kind of history of human aggression do you need? She just killed and ate some poor fawker. She's a man eater. Sounds like a pretty serious history of human aggression, to me.
They say... Humans are downright tasty. Long pork, was the euphemism the last of the cannibals used. The other white meat. Sweet and tender, so all the descriptions go. In the literature, it's not hard to find examples of bears going back for more, after that first taste, of the forbidden fruit. We're soft and slow and full of good fat and calorically dense. And tasty. For an animal that burns fat for energy - unlike most of humanity who've fallen into the carb trap, why wouldn't a nursing sow bear easily capable of stalking, killing and eating us, go back for more? My reading of the literature, says she is way more likely to, than a bear that hasn't tasted the forbidden fruit. I'm sure that will be disbelieved and discarded as nonsense, here. I trust Art to ferret out and read the tea leaves on it, if he wishes, and will abandon the subject entirely now, myself.
I'm all for letting people take their chances out there. Everywhere. In all contexts. Totally in favor of way less rescue and overall concern for human safety. Let idiots (or the simply unlucky), die out at the Wave, rather than further burden everyone with regulations and access restriction which serves only to save the lives of the unprepared. Let 'em just die. I'm fine with that. Apply that concept universally. I'm down.
Bear country? Same deal. I'm fine with letting the bears rule as they please. No repercussion for eating people. Provided, we humans are legally allowed to care for ourselves. I end up as predator turds? Sounds good to me. But, do allow me freedom to fully participate in the event. In which case, take it as sadly, and I won't begrudge the thought, but, I like MY chances.
But that's not reality, or ever going to be reality. The world is moving, at an ever accelerating pace, in the opposite direction. If gov't is going to make rules and restrict our behavior, "for our own good" and the good of the animals, then gov't killing of the killers is just part and parcel of it. I don't see trying to have it both ways as very reasonable. Kill the bear and move on... Else let people get eaten, or not, according to their own conscience, ability and luck. But also let them fully participate in their own fate, without repercussion. But, like I said, that's not reality.
None of which, touches on the real issue here. Which are the financial aspects. Money is the ultimate driver of all policy decision anymore. In all areas of gov't. Finances dictate that man eaters be destroyed. None of our thoughts or concerns will be consulted, except as elaborate diversion. Money best served by destruction of killer bear. End of story.
- DAA