Bruce, the story was wishy washie from the get go. It first said something about him tracking the bear to the cave, and then coming back later and killing it, with no account for the time of tracking to the cave, and later killing it, was it minutes, days, weeks, or months???? Nothing is his story said that he tracked the bear to the cave, waited outside and then went in after it; it simply said that he tracked it to the cave, and went back later and killed it (at least from my recollection). Seriously, have you ever tried to track a bear without dogs (even in snow), they just don't leave much evidence unless you have the nose of a hound. The odds are that the guy knew the bear hibernated in the cave, and took advantage of a bear that was virtually in a sedated state (hibernation); that simply is not fair chase as far as I am concerned. Frankly I had a problem with his story from the get go, you simply can't see in a dark cave without artificial light, which is illegal. Secondly, do ya really think that even with artificial light that he could actually make out that the bears ears were pinned back as he described? There was simply way to many holes in his story, and to many unanswered questions, as far as I was concerned. I wasn't there, so I simply don't know what happened and what didn't happen, but it raises both of my eyebrows.
With that said, the bear is still a magnificent animal, and the bear is due recognition as such; the hunter may be a different story.