I guess I may be in the minority when it comes to this and this is probably a controversial subject, but I am in agreement with the National Park Service not to destroy the mother Grizzly Bear
in this case. This case is not like the case last year when a mother and cubs went into a campground at night and started attacking. Those bears (including the cubs) were destroyed. From what I've read in other articles (and this one), this hiker did everything he could and made right decisions when he encountered the cubs. Unfortunately, the mother bear was behind he and his wife and had accidentally come between the mother Grizzly and her cubs.
Grizzly Roams Free after Killing Hiker It has been my belief that hikers know the risk and as pointed out in the article, an attack like this is 1 in 3 million. We all hike in areas of risk. I've seen a Mountain Lion in the area I hike locally (1 in the 12 years I've hiked the Santa Rosa Plateau.) I put myself in a situation in which I could get hurt or even killed when I hike areas that I know wildlife exists. I wouldn't want a Mountain Lion killed when I know they may be there. Same with Bears in the wild.
The National Park Service posts signs about the bears when they know cubs will be with their mothers. Everyone knows there are Grizzlies in Yellowstone. Everyone knows there have been attacks over the years, mostly non fatal. I remember attacks from many, many years ago. Hikers need to understand the risk and accept the responsibilities. My son is a surfer and has surfed many spots around the world since the age of 3 or 4. He tells me that he does get scared when he sees sharks in the water. When he sees them, he removes himself from the situation. He accepts responsibility for what a shark can do. It is impossible and wrong to put moral and human characteristics to a wild animal. In this case, the NPS was right.
"Turtles, Frogs & other Environmental Sculpture"