One human being is worth more than an infinite number of grizzly bears. Another way to put it is that there is no number of live grizzlies worth one dead human being. If it’s a choice between grizzlies and humans, the grizzlies have to go. And it’s time.

In a piece in the LA Times which exudes far more compassion for live bears than dead people, writer Julie Cart wrings her hands over the 48 grizzlies that have died this year in the Yellowstone region this year, on top of the 52 which died last year.

Now two people have also died, which barely rates a mention in her column. In fact, her opening sentence oozes with sympathy for these poor, misunderstood creatures: 

“It's been a bad year for grizzly bears, and, if forecasts prove correct, it's only going to get worse.” 

It’s not until the fifth paragraph that we get the first mention of a human fatality. And it’s only in passing, in words from a man who lost a friend to a grizzly and naturally blames people, apparently including his own botanist friend:: 

"A grizzly is a top-level carnivore; at times he will act like one," said Chuck Neal, author of "Grizzlies in the Mist," who lost a botanist friend to a grizzly attack this year. "People are a readily available source of high-quality protein. We eat too much and exercise too little. We're like a hot dog on two legs." 

Yep, the problem is those pesky couch potato homo sapiens who just need to get in better shape. So they, what, can outrun a bear?

The other culprit, of course, is climate change, and since Julie apparently believes the fantasy that people are to blame for that, well, there you have it: 

"A number of complex factors are believed to be working against grizzlies, including climate change. Milder winters have allowed bark beetles to decimate the white-bark pine, whose nuts are a critical food source for grizzlies. Meanwhile, there has been a slight seasonal shift for plants that grizzlies rely on when they prepare to hibernate and when they emerge in the spring, changing the creatures' denning habits.” 

It turns out that one of the deaths, the death of Mr. Neal’s friend, was entirely preventable: 

“There is another chilling footnote to 2010: For the first time anyone can remember, grizzlies attacked and killed two people. In June, Neal's friend the botanist was alone when he stumbled upon a ‘nuisance’ bear west of Cody, Wyo., just as it was coming out of anesthesia after being relocated by wildlife officials.”   

So this predator was relocated instead of euthanized, and woke up just in time to have the botanist for lunch. Another group of victims were attacked where they slept in a campground: 

"In July, near Cooke City, Mont., an undernourished sow with three cubs stalked a group of sleeping campers over several hours, attacking two people before killing one man. Parts of the victim were found in the sow's stomach.” 

Ms. Cart continues her angst-ridden piece by making a statement that is ludicrous on its face: 

"With more bears and more people stuffed into the 22,000 square miles of bear habitat, something has to give, and no one here has a simple answer.” 

Of course there is a simple answer: shoot these man-eaters on sight.

The carnage continues because of a benighted ruling by a federal court. Putting the grizzlies back on the “threatened” list means a human being can hardly shoot one of these as he is bearing down on his family without facing federal charges: 

“The animals may be a victim of the success of conservation efforts. In 2007, the species was considered to have recovered enough to be taken off the endangered species list. But a court overturned that decision last year and returned the bears to ‘threatened’ status, a decision U.S. Fish and Wildlife is appealing.” 

Maybe we could send a few of these “nuisance” bears home with these federal judges and help them get their minds right about the mindless risk they are forcing on their fellow members of the human race.

With 600 bears in the region, triple the 1975 numbers, the problem is obviously only going to get worse, as they approach what one enlightened specialist says is the region’s “carrying capacity for grizzlies.”

Maulings are occuring at twice the yearly average in Wyoming, due to “persistent run-ins with people, including hunting livestock.” Ms. Cart euphemistically refers to these maulings as occasions on which the cuddly bears “interact” with human beings.

The problem has also spread to the black and brown bear populations, which in increasing numbers are “roaming into backyards to get at dog food (and) ransacking campgrounds.”

Apparently, patience is beginning the wear thin, which is understandable. According to Mark Bruscino, a bear management supervisor: 

"You can look at the mountains and know there are grizzly bears there — that sits pretty good with people. But when you go to your kid's 4-H facility and bears have ruined the place, that changes things. People in Wyoming think they have enough bears." 

Or maybe we just need some remedial education for these carnivores: 

"Grizzlies ‘don't realize that setting up in a subdivision is a bad thing,’ Schwartz said. ‘They perceive it as suitable habitat — food, space and no competition. What they don't realize is there's a lot of people.’” 

One author astutely suggests that the problems will continue “until we allow the bears to expand their range.” There’s a terrific idea. Let’s let them prey on children in schoolyard playgrounds.

Then comes this hilariously frightening paragraph, in which “experts” are “shocked” - shocked, I tell you - that grizzlies like to eat people: 

"The two bear attacks that resulted in human fatalities shocked experts, who were at a loss, especially, to explain the predatory behavior of the sow and her three cubs. But an investigative report that included a necropsy of the female bear may have provided the answer: the bears were simply hungry.” 

I mean, really, who in their right mind would even think that bears might eat people because they are a food source? Sure never occurred to me. And these are our “experts.” Criminently.

God makes it clear in Scripture that deaths of people and livestock at the hands of savage beasts is a sign that the land is under a curse. The tragic thing here is that we are bringing this curse upon ourselves.

(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)