Bears that attack must be killed

I’m usually in agreement with The Herald’s editorials, but your Monday editorial, “Wildlife kill policy should be re-thought,” deserves a response.

I disagree with your statement that “killing one just because a man was attacked makes no sense.” How can you advocate taking the risk that another person could be maimed or even killed by this bear? I do agree with you that black bears are timid and rarely attack. The fact that this bear did attack a grown man would indicate to me that this animal is an exception, and it is prudent to take drastic measures to prevent future occurrences. If this bear injured a grown man, it certainly would not be afraid of attacking a child. While there is no certainty a captured bear would be the same one, the person attacked could likely determine if a captured bear was the same one who attacked him before the bear was destroyed.

Your statement that “there’s no defensible reason to kill a bear for acting like a bear” is absurd. Would you use the same logic to defend a pit bull that attacked a woman walking her dogs? Would your logic apply to a cougar that was stalking children near their elementary school? We segregate people into prisons when they exhibit aggressive behavior patterns to protect society, and we should take similar actions to remove overly aggressive animals when they pose a risk to humans. Bottom line is that a person’s life and health is more important than an animal’s, always and without exception.

Steve Larson

Lake Stevens