Reader comments
Feeding of bear forces it to be killed

Don | 3:45 a.m. Aug. 19, 2008

Couldn't they have moved the bear to the high Unitas?

No, they can't | 7:28 a.m. Aug. 19, 2008

C'mon Don. Don't you know how bears work? Once they go somewhere they remember how to get back, even if you take them 20-30 miles away. It has to be hundreds of miles or more, and if they have the habit down of going to people for food instead of getting it in the wild, they continue doing it. It fouls up their instincts, to some extent. From one who has encountered a 'garbage bear', as they are called, it's really hard to get them to leave once they find a place they like.

Why? | 7:44 a.m. Aug. 19, 2008

Couldn't the DWR have been a little less arrogant, let the bear live in a zoo or some other option, I know they think they know everything, but here you have an admitted docile, friendly animal and DWR puts it down because they say it is a danger and a killer. The only animals I see killing are DWR. Now that is dangerous.

Comments continue below

Bob in line | 8:14 a.m. Aug. 19, 2008

I spoke with a government trapper a few years back about live trapping bears. Of interest to the comment about releasing it somewhere else. The trapper said they tagged it and released it on the Colorado border about 100 miles away. Within two weeks it was back at the same spot causing the same problems.

And they also said that Utah has a large number of bears. And how many zoos need more black bears? In any case, having a bear that has lost its fear of humans is not good. Black bears are smaller but remember the 14(?) year old boy in American Fork canyon that was killed by one last year?

I agree with what the DWR did. Maybe not fun but sadly necessary.

Wrong one shot | 8:19 a.m. Aug. 19, 2008

What ramifications are there for the homeowner who repeatedly fed the bear?
If the feeding is what caused the "menace" then the homeowner bears responsibility (no pun intended) for the problem.
What is to stop them from feeding more bears? Based on their actions, it appears they will do this again.
Perhaps next time someone is killed by bears looking for food in this area because of the actions of this person.
It certainly didnï¿½t appear that any of the ï¿½strongly worded lettersï¿½ changed this persons mind.

To show.... | 9:01 a.m. Aug. 19, 2008

his grandkids? What was he thinking? He should have pet the bear himself first to see how it would react to him while feeding. What a lunatic...

DR Don | 10:37 a.m. Aug. 19, 2008

"He should have pet the bear himself first to see how it would react to him while feeding."

Nowhere in this story does it say anyone was petting the bear.

An idiot ........ | 10:40 a.m. Aug. 19, 2008

like this guy would be the first to go against the DWR if one of his kids/grandkids had been mauled by his "pet". Having grown up in the Yellowstone area we had a respect for the wildlife there, and we didn't feed them even though they wandered into our area, and we didn't have any problems with them. You take the fear of humans away from these animals and they could turn on you for whatever reason. She may have been a small 2 year old bear, but it even a cub can do some damage. They have sharp teeth and claws, they just get sharper and stronger the older they get. Returning to the Yellowstone area, it amazes me how totally stupid people can be around wildlife. It's like they think no one would have animals wandering around not fenced or in cages if it was dangerous.

Went there last week and you wouldn't believe all the people approaching the buffalo with camera in hand and a big grin on their faces in anticipation of getting a really good close up of them. Of course, if they're allowed to stand right next to your car, they can't be dangerous.

hey let's not forget... | 1:49 p.m. Aug. 19, 2008

hey let's not forget...the real issue. He was on his own private property! We should all have the right to do what we want on our own private property. If I choose to have a pet rottweiler, which have been proven deadly, it is still my right. The DWR had absolutely no jurisdiction...dangerous or not. I would sue if my private property rights were unlawfully usurped.

Re: DR Don | 2:55 p.m. Aug. 19, 2008

You are missing the point. He should have tried to pet the bear himself, if he thinks it's his pet and can do anything on his private land. Pet it first, alone before showing it to his grandkids. See how the bear would interact with him......LOL!!

what??? | 3:03 p.m. Aug. 19, 2008

To: hey let's not forget...

Yes you have the right and to have a rootweiler in your yard... but if that blood thirsty dog hurts some little kid then the state has to take action. Even if it is in your yard!!! You have your rights and privelages until they end up hurting someone!!!!

That guy that was feeding the bear... he has a right but the DWR has to nip it in the bud before the bear hurts someone (proababley the old guy and/or his grandkids)!!!!!

Come on people use your dang common sense and think safety first!!!!

If you want to see a bear go to the dang zoo!!!! Don't feed one!!!!

Oh yeah... don't get a rottweiler!!!! They are just mean dogs. they may be nice but in the end they are still mean!!!!

feeding bears | 3:09 p.m. Aug. 19, 2008

I don't think that bears have much difficulty in feeding themselves. The lastest headlines around the country suggest that bears are constantly snacking on humans. One less bear to spoil my camping experience is really good news.

To: Hey Let's not forget | 4:21 p.m. Aug. 19, 2008

The bear was not his property, and if I had a rotweiller, I think I would be a little upset had he enticed it to his property for the entertainment of his family. Same goes for the bear -- the DWR has the responsibility for them, and thus is the owner of such animal (the bear). Yes, he has a right to do what he wants on his property, but I didn't see anythiing in the article that said he owned the bear. I think you have to have a special license for that. Yes, you can have a pet rotty on your own property, and no one has the right to trespass to remove it, as IT IS YOUR OWN PERSONAL PROPERTY. We're talking apples and oranges here. If your rotty got off your property and injured someone, you would be liable. If the bear had attacked someone, would the guy be liable as he had lured it to his property? I think not, but the DWR would come under fire for allowing a dangerous animal to wander at will.

Come on, use your head.

Another thought | 9:16 p.m. Aug. 19, 2008

Private property has always had limits. In this case wild animals fall under the protection of the State of Utah, which handles this through the DWR. As such there are restrictions on black bears.

I know in some states you can shoot and kill any wild animal on your property. Thankfully Utah has not gotten to this point. North Carolina used to have some laws like that and it had been three decades since they had seen a White Tail deer in some parts of the mountains.

feedingbears | 9:43 p.m. Aug. 19, 2008

Hey, I get the "bear scare" camped out in the woods. But it's an over-rated fear. Spend your time fearing something more reasonable and likely to happen, such as being kidnapped and probed by space aliens.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.