COMING SOON AND ON TRACK
The Second Night of the Grizzlies
Fortunately, producers of the upcoming reenactment of the 1967 fatal maulings in Glacier National Park plan to stress sensitivity over sensationalism.
By Bill Schneider, 8-23-09
On August 13, 1967, exactly 42 years ago, as I start to write this column, everything changed for the grizzly and everybody managing the national parks where the bears live. It’s a well-known tragedy--two young women killed and partly consumed by two separate grizzly bears in two separate locations on the same frightful night, all so expertly chronicled by Jack Olson in Night of the Grizzlies, which might be the best selling outdoor book ever.
I was in college at the time, spending my summers working on Glacier’s trail crew. The park usually pulled us off the trails in August to fight forest fires. That’s what I was doing on that night, sitting in a fire camp on Apgar Mountain a few miles away from Trout Lake and Granite Park, the sites of the fatal maulings. All of us on the fire crew were huddled around a campfire listening to bits and pieces of broken transmissions coming over our fire radios, trying to figure out what was going on, but knowing it was bad.
That is, in part, why I’m so interested in the yet-to-be-titled documentary coming soon from Montana PBS. In it, producers plan to revisit the darkest night ever in the first hundred years of Glacier Park, the bear management profession and friends and family of two young women who didn’t need to die.
One thing that happened after the first two deaths caused by grizzly bears in any national park south of Canada was a seemingly endless series of magazine articles, books and Grade D films, all painting the grizzly bear as a bloodthirsty, man-eating beast. It was even suggested that the federal government kill all the bears make the parks safer for people.
It isn’t really a re-enactment, co-producer Gus Chambers told NewWest.Net, but more of a “look back” at what happened. “We’re not really re-enacting anything.”
He explained that, unlike most documentaries, this one will be “90 percent still photography,” both new photos and rarely seen snapshots taken by the survivors of the attacks overlain by audio drawn from recent interviews with survivors and other key figures in the attacks and the aftermath.
“We’ve interviewed all the principal people,” he explained, “and we’re trying to handle the situation as delicately as possible. They (survivors) only agreed to do it because we convinced them this wouldn’t be a sensational show. The interviews of the survivors are dramatic enough.
“It’s only dramatic because the events were so dramatic,” he continued. “We’re trying not to cause more fear of bears. That’s the last thing we want to do. Lot’s of people have contacted us, and they’re worried about our intentions, but we’re being as careful as we can be. We’re going to make sure nobody is the culprit, especially not the bears.”
This is welcome news for people like myself who have closely followed the tenuous relationship between bears and humankind. The grizzly tends to generate drama by its very existence and has done so ever since Lewis and Clark formed the national image of the terrible big white bear of the American West.
Two hundred years later, the image still belies the facts. Anybody who has studied the situation knows that the chance of getting killed by a grizzly bear in Glacier or any other national park is so remote that it can hardly be statistically described---at least compared to real threats like falls, hypothermia and drowning, all of which claim so many more park visitors.
“This is about bears and how bears need to be bears,” Chambers assured. “People weren’t letting bears behave like bears back then.”
Stay tuned for more on the upcoming documentary, which is currently scheduled to air in February 2010.
Footnote: A 42-year-old photo used with this story was taken by friend and fellow outdoor writer Bert Gildart of Bigfork, who was one of the two rangers who shot this bear that was responsible for the Trout Lake incident. To read his story, click here.
[End of article]thanks bill for the very personal account of that night. the park service has made many changes to its policies concerning bears and people. although our national parks seem to be perfect places we know policies are not perfect. combine that that with the imperfect behavior of both man and bears, combined with the harsh reality of nature, and we know conflict will still exist.
Comment By bearbait, 8-24-09I just hope the powers that be don't leave the large private land owners out of the loop on grizzly bear habitat. They are part of the deal that makes it all real. Having a resident grizzly is not the end of raising livestock or using your land. That one or more would use your land makes it real, and makes your husbandry worthwhile. After all, a grizzly is living there, and that means the habitat is worthwhile. Mostly, it probably means there are few people using the land, and security for the bears is very viable. Instead of this constant penis envy bad mouthing of the large landowners, we should be commending them for their respect for the land and its ability to provide habitat for a wide variety of plants and animals.
Comment By Karen V. Stefanini, 8-24-09In future campers should be required to pitch tents out of the way in fenced in areas or sign a release exempting the bears from responsibility in case of maulings or fatalities. Campers should not be permitted to cook at campsites. Energy bars should suffice. After all, how would they feel if delicious meals were brought into their homes and and they weren't offered any? Private lands are being set aside though something called "easements" for grizzly habitat expansion I believe and the venerable Vital Ground founded by Doug and Lynn Seuss is active in this wonderful endeavor. It is amazing that the owners of the land actually consider it to be a privilege to be involved in this pursuit according to articles I have read on the subject. I personally don't agree with allowing campers to stay overnight in bear habitats - out of the way spots for them to sleep in secure campers and recreational vehicles or motels is more sensible and would keep bears out of trouble.
Comment By Karen V. Stefanini, 8-24-09Typo Correction in prior comment: Seuss should be Seus
Comment By rockhead, 8-25-09OK Karen should we just close western Montana down then? Some of us have learned how to camp responsibly and would never be caught in a Land Whale (camper). Please visit http://www.BeBearAware.org for proper bear proceedures while camping, hiking or just living in bear country. As for energy bars as the only food source, what bears don't like energy bars?
Comment By Karen V. Stefanini, 8-26-09Reply to Rockhead: Whatever it takes. Also, cooking odors surely attracts bears more than an energy bar wrapped in plastic. If eaten and the wrapper taken care of properly, fewer bears will get into mischief at campsites.
Comment By Karen V. Stefanini, 8-26-09typo: attracts should be attract
Comment By Brock Anderson, 8-27-09On a related note, I found this blog to be disturbing, but oddly entertaining despite the fact that it is completely illegal and against my own values. I wonder if MT FWP knows about it? I wonder if its even true?
http://montanaelkhunting.blogspot.com/2009/05/swimmin-with-griz.html
Night of the Grizzlies gave birth to the myth that menstrual odors attract bears; I'll give you 10,000:1 odds the program does NOT deal with the issue honestly, if at all.
The NPS had some bad management policies back in 1967, but there's no need to focus on that. It was OK to feed bears back in the old days, we know that was a mistake. Not point dwelling on it. Move on.
I sure hope the program explains the difference between food-conditioned bears, and human-habituated bears. Food conditioning is bad. Habituation? Not necessarily.
I doubt the program will mention that today's NPS backcountry permit system forces people to camp in risky places chosen by the NPS. The NPS should have relocated many of its designated backcountry campsites to less bear friendly locations decades ago.
I'll give you 1,000:1 odds a NPS representative states that black bears are more predatory toward people than grizzlies. Which is not true (Herrero & Tom S. Smith).