Kerry Guntrie, Yellowstone National Park bear biologist for 27 years, has never seen such an accident. In all my time, 20 plus years, researching and learning about bears I have never heard of this happening. Last week in Yellowstone a yearling brown bear was being trapped and was killed in an unfortunate accident.

Usually, yearlings are not trapped but this bear was injured and needed to be assessed. From visual observation this cub appeared to have a serious eye injury, bite marks from either wolves or another bear and injuries that would preclude normal eating from injuries to the jaw. The park service found a zoo that would adopt this bear if his injuries were survivable and did not render this bear a painful life.

So the operation was setup, a trap positioned and baited to lure this little baby bear into a new life. While rangers were on station this yearling approached the trap, climbed the ramp into the barrel trap and went in to eat the bait. The heavy door slammed shut as it was intended to do. This is where the incident turned bad. The door was within a foot of being completely shut when the bear spooked and leaped to get under the door. Unfortunately, this yearling was able to get its head and neck out before the door shut tight. The ensuing complete closing caused the bear to be trapped by the door and the weight of the door broke the bear’s neck.

The rangers that were involved were stunned by what they just observed. They rushed to see if there was anything that could be done but it was too late for this little one. When ever one works with wildlife there are always problems that develop. This was a complete and total shock as no one could ever imagine an event like this happening.

An investigation of the incident by bear biologists found that this was a tragic and unforeseen accident. It was not a predictable event but would become a learning experience.

New protocol is being developed in the capture of very young cubs and new and safer traps are being looked at for purchase. Ranger Guntrie told me “if he had to build a safer trap himself he would do this”. Working with bears for 27 years and working to give them a better life, an incident like this is heartbreaking. Some good will come out of this incident as the park service is dedicated to the job of protecting bears and all animals in the YNP.

Upon necropsy this was a seriously injured bear. The damage to the skull near the eye caused the bear to be blind in that eye. The skull damage in that area was severe and did penetrate the brain cavity. He had canine, wolf, penetrating bite wounds that penetrated into the brain cavity with associated infection. He had a hole torn into the mouth cavity that allowed food to escape as he was eating. It was determined at the time of necropsy that this bear would have been putdown due to the extent of these injuries. All the injuries were caused by other bears or wolves while in the wild. The bears mother appears to have been killed as she was nowhere around and seems to have been out of the picture for an extended period of time. Being a bear in the wilderness can be tough.

I believe that the park service tried to do the right thing in capturing this yearling and finding it a home. As anyone that plays in the wilderness knows, some of the best laid plans fall apart and turn to disaster. With the best of intentions and planning this is one of those times.

I want to thank Kerry for his time in explaining this event to me. I appreciate his candidness about the incident.

In this case the bear was not food conditioned nor habituated to the presence of humans. Remember never feed any bear while in the park or other wilderness lands. Bears need to be wild. A human fed bear will always be a dead bear!

Thanks Mingo

This seems to be the summer of bears gone wild. There seems to be an inordinate amount of confrontations, some with tragic consequences.

Last weekend in the Red River Gorge area of the Daniel Boone National Forest a juvenile, 2 or 3 year old male bear attacked a hiker on a trail. According to Steve Bonney, a wildlife biologist and regional coordinator with the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources. the confrontation appears to be a serious and unprovoked confrontation. Mr. Bonney is helping in the search for this particulare bear.

As of 29 June the investigation has determined that the victim was walking on a trail with his family. The male adult moved forward and became separated and out of sight from the other family members. He apparently saw the bear and realized the bear was tracking him. The bear came out of the brush and bit the victim the first time. At this point the victim did begin to shout and throw rocks at the bear. The bear came back and scratched the victim on the chest and then bit him and appeared to want to pull the victim off the trail. By this time other hikers responded and repelled the bear with rocks, shouting and hitting it with sticks. The rescuers were able to get the victim to the road and call for assistance. During this period the bear stalked the rescue party back to the trailhead.

What part did the victim have in accelerating this attack? Was this a food conditioned or otherwise habituated bear? What part did age have to do with this attack? Was this a predatory action by this bear? What will happen to the bear?

This confrontation is rather interesting in many ways. Taking down a single hiker is rare as bears usually leave people alone combined with the stalking behavior after rescue. Another striking point is the bear’s behavior having the appearance of wanting to drag the victim off the trail and the outright brazenness of the attack. Based on what is known about this attack I will attempt to bring some understanding to what happened here.

In the eastern US most bears that confront humans are food conditioned not to fear us. Predatory black bears are rare in this population group. From all indications this bear displayed predatory actions. Normally food conditioned bears will bite and then generally leave the scene of a confrontation. They may not go far but they will discontinue an attack after making their point. No food, I will bite you.

In this case this male bear seemed to target the victim as shown by its stalking movement prior to the attack. Then repeatedly attacking the victim, at least 3 times, indicates unnatural aggression. Grabbing and shaking a victim is also very unusual as is attempting to drag the victim off the trail. This behavior is generally an action that indicates the bear was going to feed on the victim. The last ominous sign is the bear stalking the victim and rescue team to the trailhead. This is always a seriously bad sign and indicates intent on the part of the bear. This bears actions lead one to believe that its motive was to attack and feed on this victim. In this case the victim and the rescuers performed the right actions, fight the bear.

What part did the victim do to accelerate the attack. None! Just the wrong place at the wrong time. By being alone on the trail this helped the bear to decide to attack but it in no way was the reason for this confrontation.

Was this a habituated bear or food conditioned? Most likely not! There may have been some instances where this bear obtained human food but most likely this bear is not a food conditioned animal.

What part did age have to do with this attack? It is a factor that is important but does not completely explain the confrontation. Young bears are still learning their way in life. Some make mistakes and end up doing things that many other bears in this age group do not make. Not sure what causes some bears to go down a more difficult path but when they do it can spell disaster. Young female bears are somewhat more stable in their behavior. Typical, and similar to females in the human species! Go figure. Never seen this in humans have we!

Was this a predatory bear? From all evidence indicated in the investigation I would say that the high probability is yes. These bears are rare, about 5 to 7 % of the base population with a lower level in eastern bears as compared to western, Canadian and Alaskan black bear populations. I believe that the two leading indicators of this is the stalking behavior prior to and after the attack and the appearance of the dragging behavior. I also think that the way and persistence of the attack indicates this bear has an unnatural level of aggression. Another indication of unusual behavior is that the bear seems to be very difficult to trap. It has very wild tendencies. This also makes me believe that the bear is not food conditioned. One other unique side to this is that the bear appears to have no home territory. Just seems to be wandering in a large and remote forest area. This will be a tougher animal to capture. .

What happen to this bear? It will be put down and a necropsy performed to see if there is a physical or biological reason for this behavior. If none is found, the only conclusion is that this was a true predatory black bear. If this is true the victim is very lucky as the bears intent was to kill and feed upon him.

The victim received some substantial injuries from this attack and I hope that his recovery is complete. Did the victim do anything wrong here, no. You have to remember that when you go to the forest bad things can and do happen. In all bear country please do not hike alone and always carry bear spray. This spray is effective, light and non lethal. It will save your life.

A word about black bears. Many people believe that black bears are non aggressive and very happy little teddy bears that are all tame and will never harm a human. WRONG. They are bears, very strong, fast, and agile and they can be exceedingly vicious when deciding what’s for dinner. The other bad thing about blacks is that they have a very wide range of behavior. Brown bears look at you and say, I will open a can of whoop ass on you because I can. Polar bears look and say you look remarkably like a seal and seal is for dinner. Black bears can be friendly and curious, just curious, noncommittal or talk like the brown bear with a can of whoop ass. You just do not know what is going on in that brain. This is what makes them more difficult to understand.

There are many subtle signals that they give off. When you miss a couple in an encounter this friendly encounter can become a terrifying confrontation. I read many of these signs and signals. It is their language. It has taken me over 20 years to understand much of this language. The casual bear visitor has no chance at understanding these signals.

I hope that this situation will allow people to understand that all bears are or can be dangerous. Saying that, get out there and enjoy the wilderness and all the wildlife.

I will continue to follow this story and report any other developments.

Bears Unlimited got involved in the case of Laurel the bear when I received a call from Patty Lanke. I had just come out of the inner Grand Canyon, was beat into a trash heap by the 130 degree trail heat and the cell phone rings. She tells me who she is and then commences to tell me of this little bear that had been killed by the Park Service after it bit someone. We agreed to talk more when I got home. This conversation did peak my interest though.

Arriving home the following day I returned Patty’s call and got all of the pertinent facts from her side. I looked at a face book site established in the Laurel’s memory and then started to put the pieces together as I saw them from one side. On Monday I contacted Nancy Gray, a spokeswoman for Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Nancy was very aware of the issues in this case as it had become fairly well publicized by this time. The story was about one month old at this point. I asked for and received from the Park Service an accurate assessment of what happened, why the bear was killed, why the bear was only 60 pounds and if any citations were written dealing with this confrontation. She told me that there was an active investigation in progress and that the decision had not been made whether to issue a citation. Many facts were still disputed at this point. We agreed that she would call me when this matter was settled. Two days later on Wednesday I received a call from MS. Gray and she informed me that a citation would be issued and that this citation would have to go before a U.S. Attorney. I was to find out later that the citation was issued for being within 50 yards of a bear in a Great Smoky Mountains National Park. This is a misdemeanor offence punishable by 6 months in jail and a $5000.00 fine. A considerable punishment for a 26 year old student!

Nancy Gray and I talked for more than 2 hours as she laid out the Park Services actions during this event. We talked about bear policy in the event of a bear to human injury. All National Parks and National Forests investigate these confrontations thoroughly and consider these events the utmost important. The general policy is that when a bear attacks a human it will be destroyed. The probability that the bear will attack again is exceedingly high. Rehabilitation is not even in the realm of possible behavioral changes. Most habituated bears are destroyed. A few are relocated if there is the room to move them many miles from their home territory. This has shown to have mixed results. The local land managers are tasked with the killing of these bears. We also discussed bear density in the Park and many other topics that deal with park and bear management policies in Great Smoky Mountains National Park.

Now I had a great deal of backup information plus two versions of what may have happened on the Laurel Falls Trail. The only person that really knew what happened was the person that was bit. As I was sitting in my office thinking about the sequence of events the phone jingled its curious noise. Connecticut on the line! Answering, I am surprise to find out I am talking to Sean Konover the very person that was at the center of this event. Now I know the Parks Service side, Laurel’s website side and now I get to talk with the guy in the middle.

We talked for over an hour that first afternoon. Interesting to hear his side of the confrontation! There were a few areas of disagreement with the two other sides to the story but the stories were remarkably similar. The investigating Park Service rangers did a very decent job at ferreting out the truth on this confrontation. I did not have any misgivings about the facts of the case but I did have some issues with how the facts were interpreted.

If you would like to see the complete report please visit the Knoxville News website or the US Attorney’s website. I also believe that Laurel’s website on Face book gives details as to what happened. In a nutshell here are the most important actions in this confrontation from the viewpoint of ascertaining what went wrong.

Sean was proceeding on the trail headed to Laurel Falls. Other visitors were also on the trail so he was not alone. At some point Sean saw the bear and proceeded, closing the distance. The bear was also closing distance on him. The bear appeared to have decided, for whatever reason, to visit with Sean. Sean allowed the bear, as he was taking pictures, to close to a distance that was becoming alarming. The bear, not being alarmed, continues to close until the distance was within biting distance. Sean was bit on the foot and then both Sean and bear departed in opposite directions.

This was a very straight forward confrontation! A young and undernourished bear that had little fear of humans, as he was completely habituated to humans and was food conditioned and a human with little knowledge of bears and especially lacking knowledge about habituated bears. A nasty combination here!

This is a confrontation that is preordained to happen and will continue to happen as long as this combination of circumstances continues. The combination of people pressing the distance limits for photography, the feeding of bears and harassing behavior towards bears and bears that have lost their fear of humans. This combination of circumstances foretells more incidents like this one with the possibility of injury and death to both participants in this silly dance of ignorance.

Lets look at this in more detail and see what happened here, why and could it have been avoided. The first question is, could have Sean avoided this confrontation. Yes, by not being on the trail. Secondly, by turning away from the bear when she started to approach him may have worked. The only problem here is that a habituated bear never acts the same as a bear that disdains human. A habituated bear will come to humans; wild bears usually try to get away from us. As the distance closed and Sean became concerned that things were not going as he had planned the confrontation was already set. At this point there was very little that he could do to stop the progression of events that would follow. Now a few ifs! Could he have run away from the bear? Possibly, but running away from a bear kicks in a chase response to many predatory animals, including bears. Bears are also great at track events as they can motor along at up to 35 miles per hour. You will never win a footrace with a bear. Running could have led to even more severe injuries. He could have begun moving away from the bear while walking backwards and never releasing eye contact from the bear. Good idea, it has worked for me in a few close encounters. My bears are generally wild bears though and more predictable. Habituated bears are completely unpredictable. Most likely the bear would have continued on in his quest for whatever he though Sean had. Once an event begins it is difficult to stop the cascade of nasty actions. So as I see it once the events of the confrontation began little could have been done to stop this cascade of bad consequences.

The real problem was a very habituated bear, a bear that was not afraid of humans and showed a complete disregard for normal bear behavior. Sean could have been Bill, Larry or Mary. No difference to this bear. Now I am sure that you are thinking that I am blaming the bear, no. The bear was a victim to. The real culprits behind this tragedy were all the humans that fed this bear. I am sure that some of you might have heard this before. A fed bear is a dead bear. This is almost 100% true. If you feed a bear it becomes food conditioned, habituated to, our food. It feeds less on its own natural foods and becomes less fearful of humans. Besides being cute and cuddly, fierce and deadly, bears are biologically nothing more than a stomach with four legs attached to move it to its next meal. From the time they come out of hibernation in the spring they have one goal, to gain as much weight as they can before winters sleep comes again. Grubs, ants, plants, acorns, berries, squirrels, fish and other larger critters are fine to eat but must be hunted. Human food is available wherever tourists congregate and is easy to get. Just act cute. Human food is also extremely calorie rich and add’s to the fat supply much quicker than grubs and ants. That is why they like human food. When YOU feed a bear it changes the bear forever. Food conditioning a bear not only changes their natural food habits but their personality changes, as does their behavior. Food conditioned bears will always confront humans for food and at some point they will and do bite humans for the food that they have come for. In Sean’s case he received a superficial wound. In many other cases the human has been seriously injured and even killed by these food conditioned bears. It is your job, each and every tourist to a bear habitat to control your trash and your hand. YOU are the cause of Laurel’s death. Each person that fed this bear is the killer.

In my conversations with Great Smoky Mountains National Park ranger and spokeswoman Nancy Gray I was informed the NPS received a great deal of negative reaction to the death of Laurel. It is nice to know that people know how to use a computer to complain but unfortunate to realize that these same people refuse to engage their brains before they understand the complete situation. When a bear, a squirrel, a dog or any other wild animal bites a human on public lands the land managers will almost always error on the side of being conservative and if they deem the animal to be showing unnatural behaviors will order the animal trapped and killed. Laurel was this type of animal. She showed very unnatural acceptance of humans. Did the Park Service cause this bear to be food conditioned? No, it was every idiot tourist that read the, do not feed the bear signs, and then decided to conveniently forget these and fed this animal. The land managers are the ones that get to pickup the wreckage of these situations and then knuckleheads decide that the land managers are the bad guys. The land managers are the ones responsible for the safety of all visitors and must do what is appropriate when these situations occur. My only fault with the Park Service is that I believe they do not handout enough citations. But that is another story and also has many pitfalls that the Park Service does not want to get involved in. If you get anything from this paragraph please see that the Park Service in this case is not the bad guy, just the guy that had to do the dirty deed. One other thing needs to be said about the Park Service in this paragraph. In all my years of dealing with Park personnel I have been treated with respect and helpfulness. I may not agree with some of their policies but I also respect that they are doing the best they can with limited budgets and a political climate that changes on the wind. I am completely impressed with the quality of people that I have met and worked with in the Park Service. The biologists in the greater Yellowstone Ecosystem are top notch along with their counter parts in US Fish and Wildlife and the state fish and game departments. They are dedicated to the health of a wildlife system and to the health of the animals in that system. I can tell you that it is devastating to many of these professionals when they are forced to destroy a bear. Think about this before you force their hand by feeding a bear.

Who was wrong in this event? Who was right? These are easy questions to answer once we break the problem down to its simplest components.

Sean! He was in a situation that became almost impossible to extricate himself from once he made the decisions to move in on the bear. The Park Service issued a citation that they were correct in doing. I would only hope that the Magistrate look at the many unintended actions of all involved, including the completely food conditioned bear, and consider this in the amount of the fine. I believe that a fine should be imposed but it must be in context to the complete situation Sean found himself in.

The website, Save the Black Bears in the Smokies from the dumb tourists, did a wonder job at bringing this incident into public view. Otherwise Laurel would just have been a footnote in the Park Services logbook. Patty Lanke has done a spectacular job and getting the focus on what we can all learn from this event. She has also done a great job in keeping this positive and continues in this direction. In a way all are victims here, Laurel, Sean, all the visitors that saw this confrontation and the Park Service. The real villains are the people that fed the bear.

The Park Service had some dirt thrown in their face over this incident. They are the responsible party and as such will always get kicked around. They did not habituate this bear and have tried to educate visitors as to the consequences of these actions. All that were in the face of the rangers need to apologize and if not please act responsibly as this will happen again. I am sure as I write this some knucklehead is feeding a bear. Sad but true.

We, at Bears Unlimited, have looked into this incident and examined all aspects of this confrontation. On the proceeding pages I have dissected this incident and come to these conclusions based on over 20 years of studying bears and their behaviors. I am sure that I could have written more but I believe that I have looked at the incident completely and believe that the points covered include the most important aspects of the confrontation. Please if you have comments email me. If you want to complain and harass anyone involved in this incident go pound sand in someone else’s sandbox. My hope is that we all learn from this incident and are able to place blame where it belongs. This should be a learning experience and I hope that the lessons are heeded.

Thank you. Mingo
PS
I want to add a clarification. After further emails with Sean about his testimony to the National Park Service he has stated to me that he never did approach the bear. It approached him and other tourists. He believes that the Park Service was incorrect in the information that he approached the bear.
This is a point of contention between Sean and the investigation that was performed by the Park Service into this confrontation. I just want to make sure that each side was heard and all the important facts are in full view of all that are interested in this event

Thank you all again.

This morning I received a call from Nancy Gray. She is a spokesperson for GSMNP. I have been working with her concerning a bears death in the Park.I will be writing about this incident and how the Park Service handled this affair.
At this time I can report that after a lenghty investigation the Park Service did issue citations to the individual involved in this confrontation and the US Attorney has filed wildlife violations charges against this guy. I applaude the Park Service for this action and the US Attorney’s Office for taking this seriously and working on the behalf of the Park and all the animals that call GSMNP home. I was most gratified to here of this action.
I think that the Park Service and all wildlife management agencies get a bad deal when having to put an animal down. They are the ones that get the blame in these incidents. The true blame goes to all the individuals that feed or habituate bears. Feeding is the most obvious way to habituate a bear. Once a bear is habituated to human food it is very difficult to change that behavior. A habituated bear is a dangerous bear, not because he wants to be but he will always come to humans for food. When bears and people unite in a small area only disaster will follow. We, as humans, demand to be protected so the land managers are forced by circumstances beyond thier control to kill the animal. I can assure you this is accomplished with the most heartbreaking of emotions.
We all must remember, each time we feed a bear we are dooming it to death. It is our responsibility to act with the utmost level of common sense in our forest preserves.
I want to thank the Park Service for thier contributions to solving this issue with a bear called Laurel. Hopefully we can all learn from this incident.
I will be writing a complete analysis about this issue in a couple of days. It was an interesting issue. I am pleased that Bears Unlimited could help and we will continue to help in all areas of educating people about bears and what thier behavior should be.
I have also been in contact with wildlife officials in Montana. I am following the investigations into 3 more incidents in the Northern Rockies. The investigations into these events is still continuing. As soon as they conclude I will report on these incidents. Thank you all and continue checking in with Bears unlimited.

Not sure if I agree with this call but it has happened. Is this another case of man interfering with a bear and the bear paying the price? I will be looking into this further.
Juristictional issues are involved here I believe. In the National Parks all is regulated by the Park, animals, veggies and people. In the national forests the state wildlife agencies regulate the animal life, from hunting, preservation efforts and to the decision to kill a bear or other wild animal. So this killing was ordered by state fish and game most likely after consultation with other agencies.
I seldom will second guess wildlife officials as I find that most tend to error on the side of conservative action. I still do not have enough information on this confrontation but I will when the weekend ends and some of the principals are back to thier phones. I have been involved in similar situations and know the work that is put in trying to understand what happened in the field. I am sure that all the individuals involved wish things had turned in a different direction but they did not.
First, I have to put myself on the record as saying that bears, wolves, cats or other wild animals that attack and kill humans have to be put down. Once an animal attacks humans it will most likely continue this behavior. Now saying that, I also believe that bears and other animals have an expectation of being left alone in thier environment. For this bear, the officials decided it had or was suspected of having an unusual amount of unnatural aggression. Boy, this is a difficult one to swallow. By nature all bears are aggressive with a dislike of just about anything except for another female bear in heat. Unnatural aggression, what is that in a bear? I have been around hundreds and probably thousands of bears and I can assure you 99% have shown me unnatural aggression. I have not shot or even bear sprayed a bear. Have I come close, oh yes for sure but I am wondering why this bear was so unusual in its aggression. It had been put to sleep for scientific purposes, manhandled and then when waking up there was a human that may have been way to close. Did this poor hiker happen upon a bear that was improperly settled to regain his natural abilities? If he was placed on or near a trail did anyone think that this might not be the most logical place? There are many unsettling facts that need to be understood here. I just hope that all the involved agencies will analyize what happened here and inplement new procedures to see that these situations stay as rare as they are.

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »