One of my buddies in the arctic just had a grizzly jump into the trench he was working in. He managed to climb out of the trench and got away. They are unpredictable. Maybe the griz thought that he was a giant goretex wearing sik-sik?
They Got The Bear That Killed Hunter
- Thread starter K98ACTION
- Start date
One of my buddies in the arctic just had a grizzly jump into the trench he was working in. He managed to climb out of the trench and got away. They are unpredictable. Maybe the griz thought that he was a giant goretex wearing sik-sik?
Read the word "few" not none. Few humans are psychopaths too....but some are!
Bears should be respected and yes they can be unpredictable but a little knowledge can go a long way in keeping you out of trouble. Every bear in the woods is not out to eat you. Being armed with nothing more than bravado and a big magnum will likely get you in trouble. Every once in a while a person will run across a bad bear like the recent case in Alberta and likely nothing would have changed the outcome but for the other 99.9% of the time, common sense is still your best friend and believing every bear in the woods is predatory is just not common sense!
Bears should be respected and yes they can be unpredictable but a little knowledge can go a long way in keeping you out of trouble. Every bear in the woods is not out to eat you. Being armed with nothing more than bravado and a big magnum will likely get you in trouble. Every once in a while a person will run across a bad bear like the recent case in Alberta and likely nothing would have changed the outcome but for the other 99.9% of the time, common sense is still your best friend and believing every bear in the woods is predatory is just not common sense!
Last edited:
I'm not disagreeing with you, common sense is a good thing. We agree that bears are unpredictable, so my only point is because we thinking men know and understand this, does that mean because a particular bear is unpredictable and decides to rip apart a lone hiker or young moose, as a target of food opportunity do we kill it for doing what it naturally does to survive? According to many on this forum regardless of the why or ifs, the answer is YES if it is a human, but NO if it is the moose... Where do you draw the line, when do you know if it is going to be a man-eater all the time or if it was just a chance opportunity for the bear to get some relaitively easy prey.
Read John Corbetts book on man-eaters of Kumon (tigers in india) it gives some insight,
So that film maker dude up in Alaska that got eaten by who knows how many bears, were those bears acting un-natural so do we go up there and shoot the lot...
It's a tough question, it just seems to me that too many people here don't give a #### about what the why's and if's.. they just want to kill the animal regardless,,, as for the Grizz being in OUR habitat, well to that I say, the mountains are NOT natural Grizz habitat, it is well known that the original habitat for the Grizzly bear was out on the prairie. (source book "Big Game Hunting in Alberta")
Yes, it is a tough question for sure. I have no distain for bears and really enjoy sharing the woods with them but I'm also pragmatic enough to know that bears that cause harm to humans must be dispatched. The real sad part is that large predators like bears are running out of room and I truly wonder how long they'll be around. Right now, they are a reminder that wilderness still remains but for how long? I'm glad I've shared as much time with them as I have.
Canada is the second largest country in the world. There is still a LOT of wilderness in Canada. The perception that the wilderness is disappearing in Canada comes from people who never get further than a couple of km from a logging road. Trust me, there is some seriously remote wilderness in Canada where after a couple of weeks you are praying to catch sight of a road.
Well guys I finally stopped working on the election campaign at least until Sunday when I have to take the big signs down so I decided to come back and check on who took the bait.
"OH WOW" this is better than I ever dreamt K98 your freaking good humour...
Your emotionally totally uninformed rantings and personal attack towards me are amazing...
"OH WOW" this is better than I ever dreamt K98 your freaking good humour...
Your emotionally totally uninformed rantings and personal attack towards me are amazing...
I draw the line at a man killer. There are no whys or ifs about that.
I agree the cubs will do it again if relocated. They need to be put down.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
I had a good friend who flew helicopters leased to the CWS, as well as to the Polar Bear Alert program here. Up until he retired he was a hands on guy who would always assist with taking data, tissue samples, and tattooing subject animals. To say he was a bear enthusiast would be a great understatement. Over the years he handled more than 10,000 polar bears and several thousand grizzlies. He viewed the grizzlies as being more dangerous than the polar bears, in that their personal space was larger, and their reaction to having that space invaded was more violent.
Now here is the issue, once a bear has committed to an attack, not a bluff charge but once he has actually made contact, he can easily change his behavior to predatory and begin to eat his victim, even though from his point of view his initial action was defensive. Check out the number of times where people have encroached unwittingly on a bear kill, the bear has attacked them, then buried them in his food cache for future consideration. The saving grace for many victims of bear attacks is that bears are not particularly efficient killers, when compared to other large predators, particularly the large cats. This is a mixed blessing however in that a bear mauling brings along with it much physical and emotional trauma.
Clearly the reaction to human predation by wildlife is not unreasonable by human terms, particularly in populated areas. Whether it makes any difference or not can be argued. The fact remains that all bears pose a potential danger for which education is the best form of defense, and part of that education should be firearms related. To my way of thinking entering bear country without a gun is like going out in the cold without a coat. We all do it from time to time when we expect to be exposed for a short period of time. But we do it knowing that choice can have life changing consequences in that you can lock a door behind you when your keys are in your parka or you can come across a bear on the one day that he might feel predatory.
Now here is the issue, once a bear has committed to an attack, not a bluff charge but once he has actually made contact, he can easily change his behavior to predatory and begin to eat his victim, even though from his point of view his initial action was defensive. Check out the number of times where people have encroached unwittingly on a bear kill, the bear has attacked them, then buried them in his food cache for future consideration. The saving grace for many victims of bear attacks is that bears are not particularly efficient killers, when compared to other large predators, particularly the large cats. This is a mixed blessing however in that a bear mauling brings along with it much physical and emotional trauma.
Clearly the reaction to human predation by wildlife is not unreasonable by human terms, particularly in populated areas. Whether it makes any difference or not can be argued. The fact remains that all bears pose a potential danger for which education is the best form of defense, and part of that education should be firearms related. To my way of thinking entering bear country without a gun is like going out in the cold without a coat. We all do it from time to time when we expect to be exposed for a short period of time. But we do it knowing that choice can have life changing consequences in that you can lock a door behind you when your keys are in your parka or you can come across a bear on the one day that he might feel predatory.
How is the view from underground?
No doubt there is lots of wilderness left and yes, I experience it every year but to say that wilderness is not disappearing in Canada is laughable.
On that we agree Boomer but way too many people think they are safe from bears because they are packing heat......the fact is, they are not. Bear education is a broad subject and as you say, part of it should include firearms but it needs to include a whole lot more. There are many things a person can do to likely prevent the need for gun play and when it gets to that point, how many people actually have the training to take care of business. Not many I'd say. Educate people to avoid conflict and people and bears are better off and save the guns for that .1% or bears that don't play by the rules.
Canada has an area 9,984,670 sqaure kilometres, second only to Russia. The land area of Canada is 9,093,507 square kilometres.
Canada has a tiny population for this large land area. Our population is increasing (mainly by immigration) so yes, our land space used in urban and rural development is increasing. But with respect to the second largest country in the world with a population density of only 3 people per square kilometre, the rate of wilderness disappearing is greatly over-estimated based on the visual observations of our largely urban population concentrated within 100km of the 49th Parallel.
Look at a map of Canada and realize that this is an incredibly immense country. I agree that protecting the wilderness is a good thing but let's put it into perspective.
BTW I love the view from underground, it's never -40C and there are no black flies!
As this discussion began about an Alberta bear, it may be prudent to look at the Alberta situation. Urban expansion, oil/gas development, agriculture, logging, golf courses and mining have all encroached and are continually encroaching on wilderness in this province and we are losing it.....very rapidly. As Ike pointed out, the loss is happening at the edges and in Alberta, we are on the leading edge. I'm not saying it's good or bad and I'm not pointing any fingers but to say we are not losing wilderness in Canada at a rapid rate is laughable. It's a fact....plain and simple.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
I do not want to see bears killed needlessly, but IMHO, to consider only .1% of the bear population potentially dangerous will lead to more bears being killed not fewer, particularly as more land is opened up to human activity. If the bears are considered dangerous in the first place, people might be less inclined to try to video their children feeding them. Someone not too long ago posted a video of a little kid that was kicked at by a moose. The guy on the camera thought it was quite funny, but its a wonder the kid wasn't killed. That's the kind of thing that burns me when it results in an injury to a child or then the death of the animal. Its not even an issue of lack of respect, its simply ignorance of the dangers.
People who venture into bear country for a family adventure get away from their normal urban lives, and if they studied the bear/human interaction information available on the internet, chances are they will consider themselves not to be at risk from a predatory attack. They may very well be right. I have marvelled at how forgiving some of the bears around here are of human stupidity, but once physical contact has been made all bets are off regardless of what Herrero, Sterling, Jonkel, or Shelton might have written.
Sometimes good old fashioned bad luck happens too. A carpenter working on a building east of town this summer and got beat up some when a sow with a couple of cubs appeared suddenly from around the corner. Both parties were startled and the bear behaved as a startled female bear will, and even though the fellow defended himself enthusiastically with a hammer, the sow did not break of the attack until one of the cubs started to bawl distracting her, thus allowing the fellow to retreat behind a door. One wonders the outcome had the cub not distracted the sow and given the fellow a chance to escape. Within a short period of time a helicopter went up to attempt to find the female and cubs, but the search was unsuccessful. I marvel at how quickly these guys can disappear as well. I suggested to the guy that I might be inclined to give the bear a pass given the circumstances, but he didn't seem so inclined.
Where on earth did I say only .1% of bears were potentially dangerous.......I thought we had this talk about putting words in my mouth.....
Every bear is potentially dangerous just as every human is potentially dangerous. Potentially dangerous most definitely does not equal predatory, however and isn't that where this dicussion began?
Couldn't agree more with your bad luck scenario and that's likely what happened here in Alberta but the fact still remains that you are far more likely to be killed in an auto accident on the way to your hike or hunting trip than you are to be attacked by a predatory bear but people still jump behind the wheel of the car every day without fear.
I'm all for taking problem bears out of the equation but refuse to brand all bears as man eaters.
Last edited:
I love threads like this...
I totally support Geologist's view he is one of the few on this site that ventures out more than almost anyone else on here.
He goes by Geologist because he is one, I totally respect his thoughts in regards to these issues.
I agree with not branding all bears as man eaters but in most cases when a bear has killed and eaten a human if it cannot be removed to a remote area where it will not encounter humans again it should be destroyed.
It is not worth the risk that it could attack another human.
I totally support Geologist's view he is one of the few on this site that ventures out more than almost anyone else on here.
He goes by Geologist because he is one, I totally respect his thoughts in regards to these issues.
I agree with not branding all bears as man eaters but in most cases when a bear has killed and eaten a human if it cannot be removed to a remote area where it will not encounter humans again it should be destroyed.
It is not worth the risk that it could attack another human.
Well guys I finally stopped working on the election campaign at least until Sunday when I have to take the big signs down so I decided to come back and check on who took the bait.
"OH WOW" this is better than I ever dreamt K98 your freaking good humour...
Your emotionally totally uninformed rantings and personal attack towards me are amazing...
Glad you like the humour cook
As for personal attacks what? I only referred to your redneck comment as retarded! nothing personal... Oh, by the way did you get all the NDP signs back... lol.. only kidding, but for real you go guy and shoot em all, give the bear counters more ammo to stop your fav sport.Glad your back this thread was getting boring.
Sheephunter, I don't know what to make of Geo's reluctance to accept the fact that Grizz habitat is shrinking. Urban expansion really is not the issue in as so much as the oil and gas expansion into Grizz habitat is.
Again I am with you and Ike on agreeing to that point. Clearly if our industries were not encrouching into current grizz habitat then I could assume this whole disscusion would be mute, as the bears would have plenty of habitat to roam and this human bear incidents likely would not have even happened.
Look at the big pic you guys, try for once to stop thinking within your little redneck bubble.. sorry I like being a redneck but you know what I mean.
