Originally Posted by Birdwatcher
Quote
Most grizzlies comport themselves accordingly; those that don't need to be eliminated from the population. If not they will continue and in this case teach their offspring.


If they are anything like dogs and wolves, certainly individual bears must vary in personality, aggressiveness etc. much of which behavior is inherited (compare your average golden retriever to your average Jack Russel for example). I'm wondering if, back in the days, those grizzlies innately less fearful of people were more likely to be targeted, at least in retaliation, by humans. Even surviving getting stuck with arrows might seriously impede the subsequent survival of the bear.

In modern times it could be that this selection pressure against "problem" bears has decreased. I am not aware of accounts of guys being actively challenged for their kills much by grizzles in historic times as seems to regularly happen to hunters today, and while there are a few accounts of bears charging Indian camps back then, can one imagine the problems we would worry about if one set up an arch-typical Indian or Mountain Man-type camp in bear country today, especially if grizzlies today were as common and widespread as they were back then.

On the main topic, I'm inclined to view any large predator that doesn't turn and run at the sight or scent of humans as a suitable candidate for elimination, much more so for those that have already "crossed the line".



Maybe the fact that the injuns and Mt. men were mostly illiterate could account for the lack of stories about bear attacks in historical times. I'm not a history teacher so that is just a guess on my part.


mike r

Don't wish it were easier
Wish you were better

Stab them in the taint, you can't put a tourniquet on that.
Craig Douglas ECQC