Jul 1 2006
07:46 am

According to WATE, WBIR, and WVLT, a man was injured by a black bear near Gatlinburg yesterday. It seems he spotted the bear and her two cubs in the parking lot of a mountain condo/chalet development and got out of his car to take pictures. He left his car door open and his dog escaped, attacking the cubs. If you've been around a black bear mother and her cubs, you know what happened next.

According to the news reports and witnesses, the man was "attacked" by the bear while he was kicking her in an effort to rescue his dog. Thankfully, neither the dog nor the man suffered serious injuries. A TWRA officer shot the bear, and believes it wandered off to die. They were still searching for its body. The two cubs will be raised in captivity and released into the wild when they are older.

So, how many mistakes does it take to kill one of Mother Nature's magnificent wild creatures?

Mistake #1: The guy who decides to risk his life by approaching a wild black bear and her two cubs, and bonus, lets his dog escape and attack the bear's cubs, and double bonus, attacks the bear to rescue the dog. In the big scheme of nature, and especially from the bear's perspective, who was the aggressor here?

Mistake #2: The general manager of the mountain condo/chalet development who was quoted by WVLT as saying "It's going to be terrible that she's not here anymore. It's something we looked forward to on a daily basis and now it's gone thanks to a tourist." Memo to Gatlinburg businesses: sure, wild bears and especially their cubs are cute, but wild bears are not advertising props or promotional gimmicks. It's bad enough we encroach on their territory, but allowing them to hang around afterwards is a recipe for trouble.

Mistake #3: The TWRA officer who shot the bear, who according to WBIR said "A bear has attacked a human being... I'm not comfortable having a bear run around after having attacked a man with no consequence." Who attacked who again? (See Mistake #1.) What are the consequences (other than getting swatted by a bear) for people who harass or feed bears? How many citations have been handed out in the past year for that? And he's not "comfortable" having a bear running around? Then why wasn't the bear relocated away from a populated area? According to news reports, TWRA knew about the bear. Apparently everybody up there did. (See Mistake #2.)

Factchecker's picture

Too bad nobody could

Too bad nobody could interview the bear to see how "comfortable" she was with this f***ing idiot encroaching with his camera and attacking dog.  He should be euthanized and his dog given to a rescue group. 

SayUncle's picture

YEah, rather odd how humans

YEah, rather odd how humans tend to think of wild animals as like humans and need to be punished (i mean, the agent thinks a bear understands 'consequence'? jebus!)

And like the last bear attacks where they went out and killed other bears at random until they found the one that did it.

Can't we all just get a long gun?

talidapali's picture


 see below quote...that about sums up the whole situation...


"You can't fix stupid..." Ron White

Brian A.'s picture

The shoe definitely fits

Seems like the TWRA idiot is most guilty because we presume he has the greatest understanding of bears.

I guess it was easier to shoot the bear than relocate it.

Brian A.
I'd rather be cycling.

Anonymous's picture

warped perspectives

The headlines on this story in various media outlets don't agree with the content. The dog attacked the bear, then the man attacked the bear. So why isn't the dog being euthanized and the man charged with attacking the bear? Seems like the TWRA is barking up the wrong tree on this one.

frank's picture

bears vs man (idiot)

have read the articles on the bear incident in g'burg. if the bear was a problem, THE officials should have removed it to start with. NOW for the officials to come up and say the bear is a problem bear after the idiot attacked the bear to protect his pet, is there a problem here????? this idiot broke the law, and now the bear pays the price, DUH!!!!!! is there a problem here??? when are the people gonna realize, WE are infringing on the animals home, not the opposite. WE are the ones doin what we are not supposed to be doing. the laws were made to protect us and the bears, try following them, it works. the idiot who attacked the bears should thank God he was not hurt any worse than he was as well as his pet.

Rich Hailey's picture

Do bears really have homes?

WE are infringing on the animals home, not the opposite.

I was right there with you all until that point.

The bear has more right to be here than we do? Based on what?

I was unaware that the Constitution conferred property rights on wild animals. Talk about warped perspectives!

Yes, the touron (Tourist+moron) was an idiot. And yes, the TWRA man was a worse idiot. But let's remember that the bear is just a bear, and doesn't have some moral authority to go where he wills.

And before y'all go all Gaia green on me, think about the laws of nature for just a moment. In the natural order of things, territory belongs only to the critter who can defend it, and only so long as he can defend it. Only man has had the audacity to pervert this natural order of things by determining that there is some way to actually own property over and above what you can actually defend. So by nature's law, the bear had to die.

It amazes me how many people want to bow down and worship at the altar of Mother Nature without realizing what a bloodthirsty b**ch she really is.

frank's picture

do bears really have homes?

in reply to rich hailey's question and comments////
yes, bears as all animals have homes, just as we do, they just aren't built homes like ours!!!! we as human beings ARE encroaching on the animals territory. everytime a new home is built, the forest is destroyed a little more taking away from their home. when there is no place else to go, the animals start coming in what we call civilization and progress. and animals don't have property lines like we do, DUH, they have territory, which sometimes include what we call civilization..

and this HAS nothing to do with the constitution, it is just simply what is called good ole everyday common sense. and this stuff about the bear has more right to be here than we do, where did that come from. i simply said we were encroaching on the animals homes, nothing about rights.

we were not talikng about the laws of nature and who could protect what, just simply stating that the bear was protecting her young, as any normal mother would, and some idiot broke the law, so now the bear pays the ultimate price for mans stupidity, again leaving orphaned cubs?? does anybody see the stupidity in this????? and by the way, nobody is worshipping mother nature.

Anonymous's picture

I'm not defending the TWRA,

I'm not defending the TWRA, but I think the reason they have to euthanize the bear is because once it attacks a human, (regardless of the reason), it will likely do it again...possibly unprovoked.

Anonymous's picture

The Bear Didn't Attack the was the other way around

go back and read the news reports. They say the man kicked the bear, before the bear swatted him. The dog attacked the bear cubs, before the mamma bear swatted the dog. So why is it that the bear must pay? Is anyone going to put pressure on TWRA to charge this guy?

Car Guy's picture

locals versus tourists

I remember, when growing up, having a picnic up in the mountains with my parents at a campground. While eating, out of the woods came a mother bear and a cub.

The tourists all went to grab their cameras and food to go feed the bears.

The locals headed in the opposite direction as quickly as possible.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

State News

Local .GOV

Wire Reports

Lost Medicaid Funding

To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

Search and Archives