OT: Bear safety--what's the REAL deal?

Originally posted by munk

Men are more important than this. If the bear was a 'drunk' we'd say we were enabling him. If he was a felon we'd say we were soft on crime and encouraging him to murder.
You raise an interesting question when you talk about how important human lives are for us all. What I am about to write below does not directly adress your above quoted line. I am just using it as a starting point since it started up my braincells a bit.

Let's say there was a predator around that in USA and Canada combined killed 50 000 people every year and injured 2 700 000. If we somehow saw it as a necessity to have this animal around then we would accept those numbers of deaths and injuries. How do I know that? Well, check out this link: http://www.ntsb.gov/ITSA/roaddata.htm
The numbers I gave are car accident statistics.

So this is where I miss the point when people try to tell us how dangerous predators are and therefore they must be extinguished or at least kept away from human settlements. We have cars around and accept their danger. Why do we do that? There must be some good reason. It is because we like having a 1. world economy functioning. So for shallow materialistic reasons we accept 50 000 kills and 2 700 000 injuries. Ok, fine, it has become an integrated part of our culture, I choose not to argue with that. When I buy myself a car one day I will be a cold blooded murderer myself, no problems! I just wish to call a spade for a spade.

Now, large predators... How high are their impact on our population? Much much lower, right? And some people engage a lot more fear, hatred and anger in arguing about bears than cars, right? So deducing from the widely accepted logic that selfish materialistic reasons are a valid cause for killed humans, then there should be even less important reasons for having bears around than shallow materialistic reasons. That can be the only logical thought behind wishing bears away as long as we accept cars.

This is where I get confused. Large predators are needed for keeping a healthy and functioning ecosystem. We depend on having functioning large scale ecosystems where evolution can happen freely in the generations to come so that life can adapt to the gradual changes of this planet and so life can survive on a long term basis. We need it for our species' survival. So I am confused because we choose to keep cars around for shallow materialistic reasons leading to some misfortunate accidental deaths while we don't want bears even though they are around for SURVIVAL OF OUR SPECIES on a long term basis. And the bear killing rate is even lower!

What I am getting at is that danger is part of life. What should we do with all the cliffs we can fall off in the forests? What shall we do with the unflat forest ground that you can stumble in and break your arm? What shall we do with the little wasps that sting you? Forbid them all? Life is dangerous.

Now, that was me arguing for preservation of large predators from the anthropocentric world view. This is called Shallow Ecology, better described by Fritjof Capra than me:
"Shallow ecology is anthropocentric, or human-centred. It views humans as above or outside of nature, as the source of all value, and ascribes only instrumental, or 'use', value to nature."

Personally I don't have this world view, I just employ it in order to reach some kind of people in this world that I don't understand. Personally I am a supporter of Deep Ecology:
"Deep ecology does not separate humans - or anything else - from the natural environment. It does see the world not as a collection of isolated objects but as a network of phenomena that are fundamentally interconnected and interdependent. Deep ecology recognizes the intrinsic value of all living beings and views human beings as just one particular strand in the web of life." -- by Fritjof Capra
 
without the unbroken land mass needed by large predators, things will not return to 'nature'.


munk
 
Now, that was me arguing for preservation of large predators from the anthropocentric world view. This is called Shallow Ecology, better described by Fritjof Capra than me: "Shallow ecology is anthropocentric, or human-centred. It views humans as above or outside of nature, as the source of all value, and ascribes only instrumental, or 'use', value to nature."

I don't agree with the idea that humans are more important than other species in general. I do however believe that I am more important than ANYTHING else when the "else" and I are fighting it out for survival--literally tooth to fist in the woods. Has this ever happened? No. Will it ever happen? Very unlikely.

However, I must play devil's advocate for a minute--though somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Humans are the only species that even have the capacity to worry about the welfare of other species (of course many would say that capacity, and the capacity to inflict immeasurable damage upon the habitats of other species places that worry on us rightfully), and consequently, the only one that does (so far as we know at the moment--Cetaceans(sp?)?) So, in a way you could say (morality and ethics aside-if they can be placed aside for a moment) that we are being more true to nature's laws when we act solely in our own best interests. SHOULD we act this way in reality, globally, of course not. But its an interesting point IMHO.

I think the Deep Ecology point of view is sound, and sounds alot like Aboriginal peoples' thinking from across the globe. But I think when it comes down to it, most people don't really feel this way. I know that my daughter is infinitely more important to me than any animal and any humans in the world for that matter. I do think that it would do the world,a world of good if more people thought and acted and VOTED with those ideals in mind.

I do agree with your reasoning and think that your analogy to the automobile is an interesting one:) I think another useful one is the drunk driver. Talk about a "predator" that roams our neighborhoods and threatens our lives and those of our familys! How many lives are lost each year to these "people", versus to ANY large animal predators?

Ok, rant over, climbing off slippery soapbox. Apologies to the atmosphere for realease of all the hot air(CO2):D
 
Munk,

Your post made me ask myself why I trusted black bears less than grizzlies. Yes, I am very much aware that my personal experiences do not necessarily constitute the norm. Probability theory and statistical analysis are things that are familiar to me, but it is still a good thing that you pointed that out.

So I looked up Herrero and found that there were indeed a few instances of predaceous behavior by Grizzlies. I could not find a place where he stated definitively that Grizzlies were less prone to predation of humans than black bears. My gut feeling from this book and others, as well as communication from a bear expert in Nunavut and a few discovery channel shows, is that serious injuries inflicted by grizzlies in populated areas (parks and such) are chiefly the result of a much larger, more powerful bear neutralizing a threat. Once neutralizing a human, they usually move on, leaving the subject of the attack with very serious wounds. These are wounds are usually much more serious than a typical black bear mauling.

I THINK that predaceous behavior by grizzlies is much less common than with blacks, though in retrospect this may be due to the large contrast in populations of black and grizzlies in the continental U.S. Again, from what I have read, black bears are much more opportunistic feeders than grizzlies, and simply dropping to the ground and going fetal on sight may offer them an easy meal, and a neutralizing attack by the bear will turn into feeding behavior. As a bonus, it is much more possible to fight off a black bear, and I have heard of camp cooks using baseball bats expressly for that purpose. Conversely, trying to fight off a grizzly just tends to escalate the ferocity of an attack that is only meant to stop you from moving, so it can get away safely.

Herrero writes,

“Most black bear-inflicted deaths and serious injuries fit into a pattern that is different from the pattern of major injuries inflicted by grizzly bears. Only one of twenty black bear inflicted deaths that I studied occurred within a National Park, where food conditioning and habituation are most common. In contrast, food-conditioned and habituated grizzly bears killed at least ten people in national parks. Clearly most black bears can become accustomed to people and their foods without endangering human life.

Another feature of major injuries inflicted by black bears was that predation appeared to be the motive for eighteen of the twenty (90 percent) black bear-inflicted deaths. In these incidents the bears treated the people as prey. In the fifteen black bear inflicted deaths for which data was available on the time of day of the attack, I discovered that fourteen (93 percent) of the fatal attacks took place during the day. This too contrasts with incidents of grizzly bear predation which typically occurred at night”


So I guess my gut feeling was that if I ran into a grizzly during a hike, it would likely not be hunting but trying to mind its own business. I figured that an attack by a grizzly would usually be a neutralizing one rather than a food response if I did my part, and after biting me a couple of times it would leave the scene. However an attack by a black bear, even if it started out as a neutralizing attack, could very well turn into predation on his part. Further, fighting the grizzly would likely only get me a greater likelihood of getting killed, but I could stand a definite chance against a black bear. The bottom line for me is that I would have to trust that a grizzly didn’t care to eat me when I went fetal, but I definitely would not trust a black bear to do the same. So I would fight a black and not a grizzly unless I had a strong feeling the grizzly wanted to eat me.

I would definitely be interested in reading more material about the predaceous habits of grizzlies where humans are concerned. So far, my opinions have been formed by only six years of experience, reading and osmosis. I still have reservations about barrenland grizzlies, and think that they might not act like their cousins to the south. I suspect that they are more akin to polar bears since food is scarce up there. However I have never heard of a barrenlander eating anyone. We have had many around camp over the past few years and they don’t hang around waiting for people to come out of the doors like polar bears often do, so I reckon that they are relatively safe.

As for bear bangers, it seems they have fallen out of favor a bit: http://www.mountainclubs.bc.ca/E&S/bearbang.htm
Go figure… They worked good for me once.

What they look like:
http://www.productsforanywhere.com/market/mkt_pages/tru_flare/tru_flare.html

On pepper spray (semi-serious here):
Seems like there is no harm in becoming a Human Skunk. I think even if you managed to coat yourself in it a bear would find you unpalatable and painful to bite into. I wonder if anyone has done a study on something that would be odorless to humans but absolutely banal tasting and smelling to bears. Mind you this could cause a bear frustration and it might kill you just for tasting so bad. Might be an interesting thing to have a scent that bears could smell a few miles away and think, “Ewww… Stink would say, “That stinks!” I am not going anywhere near that!” This could be a better deterrent than any last-ditch efforts when a bear does attack.

Eik and Maui:
I am glad that there are others who feel the same about these wonderful animals that I do. I spent two years out of six studying boreal ecology, biology, zoology, soil science and botany at University. In the end I specialized in Geology because I have always loved rocks and minerals, and the job market in that field was much more promising. Botany and ecology were my favorites of the non-lithic subjects. I have always had visions of being like those people in the National Geographics I read as a kid. I wanted to travel and have adventures while learning more and more about this wonderful world we live in.

I’d like to think that I gained a solid appreciation of how everything fits together: rock, water, soil, plants, fire and life in continuous, linked circles, each influencing the style and outcome of the other. I have no regrets about spending the extra two years because I really wanted to know how everything fit together. When I look at a forest or a mountain, I see so much more now than when I was a kid. I wish everyone could see what I see now. Every scenic view now tells a story!

Preachy part:
I also secretly like to think that this quest for understanding has set me apart from the average granolavore, who at times protests things out of feeling, without understanding the nature of a problem, and our inevitable role in it. Like it or not, ecology changes in our presence to accommodate us. We are a substantial part of nature’s story, and now we find ourselves stewards of our surroundings, with the ability to control and maintain our own ecosystems. The question is how will we do it? How demanding will we be? Or, how tolerant will we be? Food for thought.

Wow, another huge post and another few hours shot. This is a good topic!
 
I think you're a damn good writer and fellow and I'm glad you're around. First thing you notice about a real thinker is considering conflicting data. A lot wont.
I believe the experts are slowly changing their minds about the fetal position with Grizzlies. If you could guess he wanted to nuetralize a threat, yes. But once down, and going down is potentially lethal, he might take a bite. No one know the difference between park bears and bears with room to move.

I'd say lay fetal after your defense has failed. An expert can tell the difference (mostly-kinda sorta) on a bluff charge and a real one. WE can't. By the time you figure this out, you're dead if the charge was real.
Black bears don't predate often. When they do it is unmistakable. They follow you. Or, as happened in a boy scout camp in Ca. they take a few bites out of the tent with a choice boy scrap added to the no rip fabric. They don't leave.

munk
 
By a bear, I do what they taught us in finishing school--That's right,
Duck and Cover. Often if you do this wearinng natural colors, you are mistaken for a rock or a very strange person, and bears tend to ignore strange people.

If a bear bites you after ducking and covering, there is always the follow up defensive move: Stop, Drop and Bleed. Often rolling in bark or dried leaves, or even rolling in dirt will aid the clotting process, and you'll be glad you did.

Often if you deride a bear, or tell him how superior you are, how you have a lexus and a cell phone, and he has only his fur coat and a woods to play in, the bear will go away, feeling slightly depressed. After you leave the area, you can always email the bear later and telll him you are sorry for hurting his feelings. Many lasting man-bear relationships begin this way, and Sigfried and Roy have had similar experiences with their big cats.


Keith
 
Munk,

Thanks to you and Eikerværing and Raghorn and Kismet for your endorsement of my writing and disposition. It’s great to hear, especially since I can’t keep myself from writing on this topic. :)

I guess it is not really surprising to see the state of opinion changing on behavior in response to bear attacks. One thing that struck me about Herrero’s book was how sparse bear attacks and the data on them really were. Doubtless as new attacks happen we will gain a better understanding of how to conduct ourselves. I would imagine that bear spray data must have come in over the past six years, as oleoresin capsicum was a fairly new thing when I was studying up on bears, and when Herrero wrote his book. Are there any new works out that include this data?

Also, could ‘unarmed’ hiking be a relative term? What if I was carrying a can of pepper spray, a metal hiking stick and an 18” WWII or 25” (?) Sirupati? Would I still be relatively unarmed? Here is an interesting quote, again from Herrero, ”I know of three incidents in which black bears were likely trying to prey on people and were killed by the people they attacked. None of these people had a firearm handy. In two cases the people knifed the bear to death, and in the third case a small boulder was used to crush the bear’s skull.” So I wonder if a Khukuri would do the job in the absence of any other options, though I would still prefer the aforementioned 12 gauge pump.;)

Surprisingly, the next paragraph reiterates this, now likely outmoded, advice: “The situation might arise when one is attacked during the day while out hiking and the species of bear involved can (sic) be determined. If it is a grizzly, then probably it is a response to a sudden confrontation of a female with cubs and therefore a person should play dead. If, on the other hand, it is a black bear looking for a meal, then fighting back is indicated. I suggest studying this or other books that explain how to tell a black bear from a grizzly.” I don’t remember reading this paragraph in years past, but it may have been a good part of what I based my opinions on in my previous posts.

To put things back in perspective a bit (again from Herrero as I have it here): Over 20 years (1960-1980) and 77 million recreation days spent in New York State in areas occupied by a population of about 4100 black bears, only three black bear-related injuries occurred. All three cases were bites or swipes through tents, and one instance was only a scratched toe.

Conversely, to put a little fear and awe back into the legend of the grizzly bear, please visit the links below. I promise you will be impressed (I thought about putting these links on a separate bear O/T thread. Should I have?):

http://forum.hunting.net/bbs/topic.asp?whichpage=1&ARCHIVEVIEW=&TOPIC_ID=47662

http://www.snopes.com/photos/deadbear.htm

A khukuri probably wouldn’t have helped much in the above scenario…
:eek:

Keith, you are twisted. But in a good way.:cool:
 
Mssr. P. Geezer,

I must say that I and I suspect others appreciate the "real life" [i.e practical] experience that you have had with dealing with bears. You have been much closer to the critters than I have and that was close enough for me. And I cherish the experiences that I have had. They are indeed creatures worthy of our respect and fully deserving of any efforts to be sure that they may survive in the world that we have made.

On a somewhat lighter note, considering where your job has taken you, have you by any chance encountered the famous St. Alphonzo's Pancake Breakfast? Where you've described working seems like a probable site to encounter this event. In a similar theme, I wonder from what business munk earns the money to buy khuks. Is it as easy as the song says? I may move soon. Renting and itching in So. Cal. Inquiring bodies and minds wnat to know.

Apologies for the wierdness that dripped out in the the second paragraph, it just happened, it's not my fault really...I blame it on society.
 
a smart marketer would rename this the, HI Bear Khukuri forum.


Phil, I have a book about bear attacks. "The Bear Book', by Outdoor life, I believe. As I have said over and over, Park bears, bears with cubs, bears feeding are different than a bear spotted at a half mile.

WE need to isolate backcountry experiences from touring through a park, we need to distinguish this further from backcountry in Alaska or Canada away from development.

A black bear can be killed- reassuring. The brown is likely to go down taking you with him,if he goes down at all.


Enough Grizzlies are killed in incidents in Montana and Wyoming every year that they remain on the endangered species list- questionably. would these encounters have been lethal without a firearm present? The grateful survivors think so, many of them savvy ranchers and backwoodsmen who understand animals. It is a myth that a large population of Rednecks wait anxiously to shoot a grizz with little provocation. ONly a fool would want to take a chance like that for nothing, and risk federal prosecution. It is like judging hunters by the those who shoot highway signs, not accurate of the majority of decent people, who in these cases simply did not wish to be torn limb from limb.

munk
 
Monk, I agree completely with your statements. Backcountry bears are different than ones who get used to seeing people around. Distant sightings are of a much different nature than close encounters, and in studies of man-bear encounters should be examined to see if they represent different behavioural populations statistically.

You are also quite correct in stating that people just don't look for the opportunity to shoot bears on sight. No one wants to start anything with a grizz that they don't have to. That myth has prompted some overzealous prosecution of people who felt that they had to shoot and were just lucky to survive.

One such case dragged through the courts here in Alberta not so long ago. Two yearling grizzlies came at him at once, and he was hunting deer so he shot both with his rifle. The enraged mother then tried to kill him as well, but he managed to put it down. Upon surviving the ordeal he felt like he had one the lottery! However,it went through the courts for years and the government tried to prosecute him for the cubs after unsuccessful charges for shooting the mother. Legal costs escalated on his part but he did win the court case. I don't know if the government reimbursed him, but I doubt it. This kind of prosecution happens a lot I gather.

Firkin, whatsa St. Alphonzo's Pancake Breakfast? Is that breakfast on the day of the summer solstice, otherwise known as Traverse Naked Day?

Keith, I know what you mean. My gophers should consider themselves fortunate to have enough dead flies.
 
Mssr. P. Geezer,

The pancakes are a reference to the lyrics of a musical album ("Apostrophe") created by the late genius, Frank Zappa, which among other songs contains the infamous "Dont' Eat the Yellow Snow".

Here is a perhaps excessive excerpt:

-----
(Nanook Rubs It)

Well, right about that time, people a fur-trapper
(who was strictly from commercial)
had the unmitigated audacity to jump up from behind my igloo (peekaboo)
and he started into whippin' on my favorite baby seal with a lead-filled snowshoe.

I said, with a lead-filled
with a lead-filled snowshoe. He said, "peekaboo"
I said, with a lead-filled
with a lead-filled snowshoe. He said, "peekaboo"
He went right upside the head of my favorite baby seal
He went whap with a lead-filled snowshoe and
he hit him on the nose and hit him on the fin, and he


That got me just about as evil as an eskimo boy can be.
So I bent down and I reached down, and I scooped down,
and I gathered up a generous mitten-full of the deadly yellow snow,
from right there where the huskies go.


Whereupon I proceeded to take that mitten-full of the deadly yellow crystals
and rub it all into his beady little eyes with a vigorous
circularmotion hitherto unknow to the people of this area,
but destined to take the place of the mudshark in your mythology


Here it goes,
the circular motion, now rub it.
(Here, Fido)
And then, in a fit of anger, I pounced.
And I pounced again.
Great Googly Moogly!
Ijumped up and down lon the chest of him,
I injured the fur-trapper.

Well he was very upset, as you can understand
and rightly so, because the deadly yellow snow crystals
had deprived him of his sight
and he stood up, and he looked around, and he said

"I can't see"
"I can't see"
"Oh, woe is me"
"I can't see"


"He took a dog-doo snow cone and stuffed it in my right eye
He took a dog-do snow cone and stuffed it in my other eye
and the husky wee-wee, I mean the doggie wee-wee has blinded me
and I can't see.
Temporarily."

Well, the fur-trapper sttod there, with his arms outstretched across the
frozen white wasteland, trying to figure out what he was going to do about his deflicted eyes.
And it was at that precise moment that he remebered an ancient Eskimo legend, wherein it is written
(on whatever it is that they write it on up there) that if anything bad ever happens to your eyes
as the result of some sort of conflict with anyone named
Nanook, the only way you can get it fixed up is to go


Trudging across the tundra
mile after mile
trudging across the tundra

Right down to the Parish of St. Alphonzo

-----
(St. Alphonzo's Pancake Breakfast)

Yes indeed
here we are

at St. Alphonzo's Pancake Breakfast
Where I stole the margarine
and widdled on the bingo cards
in lieu of the latrine

I saw a handsome parish lady
make her entrance like a queen
why she was totally chenille
and her old man was a marine

As she abused a sausage pattie
and said, "why don't you treat me mean?"
at St. Alphonzo's Pancake Breakfast
where I stole the margarine.
St. Alphonzo St. Alphonzo St. Alphonzo St. Alphonzo

Get on your feet and do the funky Alphonzo
-----

I think it helps to hear it with the music.
 
Firkin's quoting Zappa?

geeze. what next? Cliff Stamp singing a Beatle tune?



munk
 
Originally posted by philthygeezer
I’d like to think that I gained a solid appreciation of how everything fits together: rock, water, soil, plants, fire and life in continuous, linked circles, each influencing the style and outcome of the other. I have no regrets about spending the extra two years because I really wanted to know how everything fit together. When I look at a forest or a mountain, I see so much more now than when I was a kid. I wish everyone could see what I see now. Every scenic view now tells a story!

Preachy part:
I also secretly like to think that this quest for understanding has set me apart from the average granolavore, who at times protests things out of feeling, without understanding the nature of a problem, and our inevitable role in it. Like it or not, ecology changes in our presence to accommodate us. We are a substantial part of nature’s story, and now we find ourselves stewards of our surroundings, with the ability to control and maintain our own ecosystems. The question is how will we do it? How demanding will we be? Or, how tolerant will we be? Food for thought.

:) :) :) :) Every now and then there comes along another non-ndn that knows. There's more than one in these forums.

Wow, another huge post and another few hours shot. This is a good topic!
I agree that it's a good topic, but not that a few hours were "shot." In actuality it was few hours well spent.:D
 
I usually don't have anything to add and this post is no different. But it is interesting stuff.
 
Yvsa, I gave up the idea most indians have an insight into the 'balance'. Perhaps I need to meet different indians. I find some people have the idea of balance, an intuition, or if it pleases some of you, a scientific approach, that finds this. Some people have this.

Many many more do not. Lots pay lip service. It is sold in movies and books. It kinda reminds me of what my dear old ma used to say, "there have always been real human beings."

respectfully,
munk
 
Firkin, I knew that sounded familiar! I haven't got the Apostrophe/Overnite Sensation CD yet. I do have 'Strictly Commercial', 'Sheik Yerbouti', 'Joe's Garage', 'Cheap Thrills' and 'More Cheap Thrills', and am familiar with 'Have I Offended Someone?'.

Truely a unique individual, Zappa loved to mess around with convention and stereotypes, exposing and criticising hypocrisy and foolishness wherever he could. An eccentric, he never drove a car and never used drugs. His numerous concertos and elaborate compositions earned him a place in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, though most people knew him for his political stances and brilliant low-brow potty humour.

The mudshark reference is to an incident involving Led Zeppelin at the Edgewater hotel in Seattle, where you can catch squid and mudshark out the window. The details of which are nasty and best not stated here.:eek:

'I knew you'd be surprised!'

PS: Post #100! Already!? Wow...
 
Back
Top