Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

brogrammer9k t1_j4xlr37 wrote

Reply to comment by fusrohdave in Polar Bear Enters Remote Alaska Village, Fatally Mauls Woman, Boy by MinimumMonitor7

Its pretty much standard wildlife conservation 101 with predators that any predator that kills humans and eats them is likely to do it again. Your feelings about leaving the bear be would not matter because not doing anything would put other people, vulnerable people in danger. The people who go to school and spend their careers studying and protecting these animals are the same ones who make the calls to euthanize them when this happens. Just because you empathize with the bear doesnt change how the Biologists with Fish and Game operate.

2

fusrohdave t1_j4yh4u8 wrote

Hate to break it to you but I know first hand that that is not “wildlife conservation 101”. First thing they do is relocate, far away from any civilization. They want the bear to live, especially when the animal is endangered. At the same time factors that led to the incident are addressed as best as they can be. In this case that would be difficult. Only as a last resort are they euthanized. If you’d actually like to learn anything, there’s actually a lot of good resources available with the WCS.

We also aren’t talking about some downtown suburbs. It’s a remote Alaskan village. There’s an entirely different set of circumstances.

2

brogrammer9k t1_j52ady3 wrote

carnivores that have killed humans are certainly not relocated.

The WCS has no actual jurisdiction on what happens to animals that have killed people, especially not in the state of alaska. Every single instance of an identified wild predator killing someone (especially in Alaska) has ended with the dept of fish and game or state troopers eliminating the animal.

The WCS has about as much a say in what happens with dangerous animals as MAAD has about legislation that DOT is responsible for.

2