# Bear at Scout Camp - Scout leader shoots it



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=25967748&ni...ting-bear-at-camp&fm=home_page&s_cid=queue-19

Long and short of the story:

-Scouts at the camp up at East Fork of the Bear River have been leaving food out for a few weeks.

-Juvenile bear catches wind of it and starts hanging out around camp.

-Camp leaders warn troops about taking care of food.

-Troop leaves out snickers bars and bear, already used to foraging for food that's been left out, bellies up to the table and enjoys his snack.

-Scout leader sees bear, tries to scare it away, doesn't, since bear likes what he has going. So scout leader shoots and kills bear.

Thoughts?


----------



## outdoorser (Jan 14, 2013)

The dang scouts should have secured their food, thats one thing for sure. I'm not sure what my thoughts are about the leader who took matters into his own hands. Oh and I've been up at this camp, pretty cool place. Was the leader one that worked at the camp or just took his troop up there? Interested to see what the rest of you think about it all.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

After reading a few different stories, it looks like it was the camp director, or at least a member of the camp staff that shot the bear - not the adult troop leader. It was at 8:30 at night, so I'm guessing it was tough getting DWR to respond??? From what I'm reading, the bear had been in/around the camp before, so was acclimated to the situation, so this particular troop wasn't the first to leave out food - just the next in a line who knows how long. 

I've camped there many times myself. My son was on staff there a couple summers ago. I love that camp. I can totally see how this could happen too, as nearly every campsite there probably had some kind of food left out. No matter how much we pounded on the boys about stuff, they all had candy in their tents.

I am of the opinion that if a bear continues to return to that camp on a regular basis, then it has totally lost all fear of humans, leaving two choices - put down, or put it in a zoo.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Camp director needs to look out for the kids. Didnt it say the bear had tore up a few tents? The dwr should have taken care of it imho but I can't hold anything against the leader. I think he did the right thing. In the end its just one bear who cares. I hope the dwr lets him off easy


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

Here's how I see it...
The bear was a problem and had frequented the camp previously. Now, if the bear would have caused injury to someone, everyone would be saying "the staff knew there was a bear in the area and nobody did anything about it". It doesn't sound like the bear was going to move on any time soon, so I think something needed to be done to keep the kids safe. However, I don't think the leaders should have been the people to take care of the problem.


----------



## Cooky (Apr 25, 2011)

Fowlmouth said:


> Here's how I see it...
> The bear was a problem and had frequented the camp previously. Now, if the bear would have caused injury to someone, everyone would be saying "the staff knew there was a bear in the area and nobody did anything about it". It doesn't sound like the bear was going to move on any time soon, so I think something needed to be done to keep the kids safe. However, I don't think the leaders should have been the people to take care of the problem.


I agree.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

One could speculate that the bear's next step was to get more aggressive with people and like Scott said, it is one bear, not a national treasure. No matter how the tree huggers spin it, this was probably handled ok.


----------



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

Perhaps the BSA should install bear proof containers at every campsite and then mandate a campsite inspection each night after dinner to ensure that bears aren't attracted in the future. I think there should also be penalties for troops that don't comply and are caught with infractions after being warned. The offending troops would in time pay back the cost of bear proofing the sites, which keeps everyone safe. 

I hate to see a public resource (the bear) destroyed because of the irresponsibility of others. In this situation, the right thing was done to protect the lives of scouts, but its still a loss of a resource.


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

After everything is said and done the fishcops won't charge the scout leader.....but they could have because the law wasn't followed in this case. I'm guessing the leader will get off with a stern warning and be told to be more diligent in ensuring a bear proof camp.


----------



## silversurfer (Oct 30, 2011)

Shot first ask question later when people are at stake. One less bear is always a good thing.


----------



## stevo1 (Sep 13, 2007)

It would be nice if they taught scouts how to keep a clean camp, make it a merit badge ot something;-)


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Chaser said:


> Perhaps the BSA should install bear proof containers at every campsite and then mandate a campsite inspection each night after dinner to ensure that bears aren't attracted in the future.


My experience at Scout Camp has been that nearly every single troop has some kind of enclosed trailer that would suffice as a bear proof food locker. And many troops are VERY good about keeping food in the trailers, keeping the food away from bears, as well as the many other forest critters in these camps. It wouldn't take much to make food storage in trailers mandatory.

But again - these camps host 500+ 12-15 year old boys every week, in addition to 100+ staff and leaders. It is a small city. If there are bears that lose fear of people all together in this setting, then no amount of bear proof containers will prevent the interactions and possible incidents.

As for legal actions against the camp leader that put down the bear - this would certainly fall within the letter of the law in poaching, meaning he killed a protected species outside of season, without holding a valid tag/permit to do so. However, to me, a poacher does not contact DWR or local law enforcement to let them know of the kill, poachers do not self-report. The leader had no intent to keep, harvest parts, or in anyway profit from his actions, or to try to get away with something here. I think if legal actions are taken by the County or DWR, the judge will certainly dismiss the case.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

I would think if you can shoot a person if you feel your life is threatened, then you should be able to shoot a wild animal if you feel the same way.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Scout camps scare me. I don't believe that most scout leaders have a clue.

DWR had been to the camp multiple times talking (warning) about keeping clean camps. Should DWR have done more? maybe. But shouldn't scout leaders have also done more? Why aren't scouts better stewards of our wildlife and natural resources? Scouts alwasy seem to be the exception to the rules. Kind of like when scouts ask for exceptions to license requirements, regulations, etc. Makes you wonder how many of those scouts had candy bars in their tents? Or toothpaste? 





Recently, a rancher in Montana was criticized for killing a wolf after baiting it onto his land. He was severely scrutinized by his actions. They were perfectly legal. Now, we have a scout leader that kills a bear after baiting it into his camp. His actions are questionable, yet people seem to be defending him. Then we have Fowlmouth's post. 

We live in a screwed up world.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

PBH said:


> ....Now, we have a scout leader that kills a bear after baiting it into his camp. His actions are questionable........


Please explain........

It seems to me we are told that bears want nothing to do with people. Yet 500+ people running around from early morning till late night did not seem to detour said animal. It also seems to me that the after the issues with the bear in AF, that the DWR would have done more sooner.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

candy bars, food, garbage -- all left out on tables and scattered around camp = bear bait.


Why weren't the leaders more cautious about keeping a clean camp? Basic common sense, especially in bear country (ALL of Utah is bear country!!), says to keep a clean camp, which includes putting your food away, and taking care of your garbage.

if nothing else, clean camps keep skunks, squirrels, and other rodents out. It's not just bears!


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

If the Food, candy bars, and litter was as bad as being suggested, where was the over site by FS and DWR? 

How many traps were set?

You are right in that a clean camp is the best policy for all.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

PBH said:


> Makes you wonder how many of those scouts had candy bars in their tents? Or toothpaste? .


My experience of scout camp is that every single tent probably had candy bars, and none had toothpaste. *\\-\\*


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

I have to wonder if the bear had heard of the recent issues facing the BSA. He may have felt that the leaders would be more tolerant of his behavior and interactive lifestyle and decided to stay. Probably a bad decision of his part but understandable in light of recent issues.


----------



## ram2h2o (Sep 11, 2007)

Good object lesson for the scouts. Because of their being so careless with their food stuff/garbage a young bear had to be shot. I would think that the scout leader(s) should also be at fault for not having control over the scouts that were in their charge. Bears will be bears, they are looking for a food source a natural thing for them to do, especially young bears just driven off my their sows.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

And kids will be kids and do dumb things when adults are not looking. We all do dumb things, forget, and/or screwup. We expect the bears to be bears but not kids to be kids.

Far better off making this a teaching moment. Use this moment to teach the kids why their action or in-action caused the loss that should not have happened. Is it going to register with all 500 kids and adults what their action did? Most likely not, but maybe a few more will take to heart that their carelessness and not being their brothers keeper caused a loss.


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

Here is what the fishcops investigating the incident are trying to determine; did the bear pose an imminent threat to the boy scouts or not?? If yes, the shooting was justified. If not, the leader can be charged with destruction of protected wildlife. 

My personal opinion is that the bear did not yet pose an imminent threat to the boy scouts. However, getting a judge or jury to agree is going to be a tall order given the circumstances. My guess is that no prosecuting attorney is going to want to prosecute the scout leader for protecting his boys no matter how small the risk, hence no charges will be filed.

Here is a bit of irony however, livestock owners have a lower legal threshold than scout leaders to take offending bear or lions. If a livestock owner has had a bear or lion kill, harass or even disturb his livestock in the last 72 hours, he can legally kill it regardless of whether it was offending at the time. So had those boy scouts been sheep, the leader shooting the offending bear would have been 100% legal.


----------



## Skally (Apr 20, 2012)

So at what point does it pose and imminent threat? Do you have to wait for it to start chewing on a scout? Come on man its ONE freaking bear, a troublesome bear at that.


----------



## richardjb (Apr 1, 2008)

So Kevin, do you agree with the standard that livestock are worth more than scouts to protect? Rhetorical question, I know. In Alaska, a fed bear is a dead bear. No questions. What is the difference here? We have some piss poor priorities here. Not dogging you Kevin. Just curious what you think about putting bears above humans?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I have read into this a bit on national forums to get a feel from the general public perspective outside of hunting forums and the like. It is amazing the broad spectrum of opinions on the matter. I'll never forget years back when one my teachers asked the students in a class if we would swerve hard to miss a deer. Just about everybody said they would. He then asked how many of us would not and three of us raised our hands out of a class of about thirty. 

I have little doubt that I would have done the same thing given the same conditions. Bad situation and regrettable circumstances? Sure. No doubt. Risk human life to save that of a bear? Nope. Not even if it was a panda.


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

richardjb said:


> So Kevin, do you agree with the standard that livestock are worth more than scouts to protect?


Of course not Richard.....it is Utah law that does that.....that's the irony I mentioned.



richardjb said:


> Not dogging you Kevin. Just curious what you think about putting bears above humans?


Who says I do that?? I'm a hound dogger and have been for over 30 years. I couldn't count the number of bear kills I've been in on. My hands are stained with the blood of dead bears. I think you are reading my posts wrong.


----------



## richardjb (Apr 1, 2008)

Sorry Kevin, we are on the same page. I should have added to the question how the state appears to put animals above humans.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

they should charge him with poaching and find the place. that was uncalled for.


----------



## AF CYN (Mar 19, 2009)

I think shooting the bear was totally justified for two key reasons:

1. A bear had attacked tents at the same campsite just days before. The story doesn't give any additional details on this incident, but even if the tents were empty at the time it creates a dangerous precedent for that particular bear and a serious threat to human safety. 
2. The story doesn't mention time of day, but if it was late in the evening like GF mentioned, I think it is too risky to wait. Scouts run around and play games at night, they get up to go to the bathroom, etc... I have a 12 year old boy. He weighs 87 pounds. I think a young bear could easily kill him or permanently maim him. It's not worth the risk. I would have done the same thing. It is too bad, though. What a waste of bear. 

On an interesting side note, I had a run in with a bear a few years ago where I legitimately feared for my safety (even my life at the time). A key reason I didn't shoot that bear was fear of legal action. Everything worked out and we parted with a mutual understanding, but it would have been too bad had it gone south for me just because I wasn't sure if I was legally justified in protecting myself.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

Another Bear shot near a scout camp. This time the DWR was involved.
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=26256067&ni...ot-near-scout-camp&fm=home_page&s_cid=queue-3


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

As long as there is food left out,there will be a problem.I think that the kids who do this should be sent home.As was said bears will be bears.These kids were warned about it.Someone needs to step it up and watch these kid closer.I was taught at a young age about campstoves,cooking pots,etc being left out.Maybe BSA ought to have better classes on bear proofing your campsite. IMHO


----------

