RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Bear mauling- stupid is as stupid does(24 posts)

Bear mauling- stupid is as stupid doesfiltersweep
Oct 9, 2003 3:37 AM
I hate that Gump movie, but anyway...

It is interesting that "officials" killed the bears when the humans were attempting to be up close and personal with these animals. What do people expect? Now if only that tiger had ripped Roy's head off...

from the news:

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - The graphic sounds of a fatal bear attack were recorded, Alaska state troopers discovered Wednesday while reviewing a tape recovered near the bodies of a wildlife author and his girlfriend.


Trooper Chris Hill said Timothy Treadwell may have been wearing a wireless (news - web sites) microphone likely activated when he was attacked by the brown bear at Katmai National Park and Preserve. The videotape has audio only; the screen remains blank for the three-minute recording.

"They're both screaming. She's telling him to play dead, then it changes to fighting back. He asks her to hit the bear," Hill said. "There's so much noise going on. I don't know what's him and what might be an animal."

The bodies of Treadwell, 46, and Amie Huguenard, 37, both of Malibu, Calif., were found near Kaflia Bay on Monday after an air taxi pilot arrived to pick them up. The pilot contacted the National Park Service and state troopers to report a brown bear was apparently sitting on top of human remains at the campsite.

After rangers arrived one of them shot and killed a large brown bear when the animal charged through the dense brush. Rangers and troopers later killed a smaller bear apparently stalking them.

An autopsy on the human remains confirmed Wednesday the couple were killed by bears.

Troopers recovered video and still photography equipment as well as three hours of video footage from the site, across Shelikof Strait from Kodiak Island.

Much of the footage is close-up shots of bears — for which Treadwell was well-known.

Some scenes show bears no more than a few feet from Treadwell, co-author of "Among Grizzlies: Living With Wild Bears in Alaska." Others show a more timid Huguenard leaning away as bears come close to her on the bank of a river.
Never maul a bear--it makes them angry.Kristin
Oct 9, 2003 6:17 AM
Seriously, though there is reason to down a bear once it has killed a human. I guess some studies show that bears who have attacked humans in the past are more likely to do again. And if the other bear was stalking the rangers--which the maulings may or may not have played a roll in--there were only two choices; tranquilize or kill the bear.

One thing that is known for sure, when a bear stalks you, you will be forced to confront it. There's is only a minute chance the stalking bear will leave you alone. I don't think anyone understands all the reasons that bears stalk, but I've read that there is some connection to starvation. If foods been scarce this summer, the bears may be despirate. This makes two incidents in a row. I'll bet you anything that area has been shut down to hikers now. Which is the safest answer for both hikers and bears.

This guy, Treadwill, was a real moron. Kinda like the psychologist who tortures people in order to study the affects of trauma. His methods were way wrong. He rolled the dice and lost, too bad for him. You're right, the bear did nothing deserving of death; however leaving it alive would risk more human lives. That is Treadwills fault. People are so tempted to get near to bears when they see them in the wild. This is exactly why you shouldn't.
Is it safe to maul rats?Hot Carl
Oct 9, 2003 10:39 AM
nm
Only little ones. nmKG 361
Oct 11, 2003 1:16 PM
The Care Bears Maul Some Campers and are Shot Deadmohair_chair
Oct 9, 2003 6:27 AM
The article I read yesterday said they shot the first bear because it was "acting aggressive." Then another bear showed up and they shot it because it was "acting aggressive." Maybe it's me, but I see a pattern here. They drop down into the midst of bear habitat and then start shooting bears when they show up?

Sounds to me like these guys have been hanging out too much with Ted Nugent. It wouldn't surprise me if they painted their faces with the blood and ate the heart while it was still beating.

Acting aggressive? Gee, no kidding. Does a bear sh!t in the woods?


By the way, the title of my post comes from one of my favorite Letterman top 10 lists from long ago:

Top 10 Children's Books Not Recommended by the National Library Association
- October 7, 1987

10. Curious George and the High-Voltage Fence
9. The Boy Who Died from Eating all his Vegetables
8. Legends of Scab Football
7. Teddy: the Elf with a Detached Retina
6. Tommy Tune: Boy Choreographer
5. Joe Garagiola Retells Favorite Fairy Tales but Can't Remember the Endings to all of Them
4. Ed Beckley's Start a Real Estate Empire with Change from Mom's Pocket
3. Things Rich Kids Have That You Never Will
2. Let's Draw Betty and Veronica with Their Clothes Off
1. The Care Bears Maul Some Campers and are Shot Dead
Rangers are typically environmentalistsKristin
Oct 9, 2003 7:11 AM
It wouldn't be typical for a ranger to shoot animals for no good reason--at least not wilderness rangers. There are some places that have redneck rangers, but those types don't like the isolated Alaskan wilderness. As a matter of fact, most park rangers would rather shoot a person than a bear. There is a definition of agressive behavior in bears, it includes stalking behavior. There are also guidelines that rangers follow when making decisions like this. Based on what I know about parks, rangers and environmentalists, I would start with the assumption that they made the best choice. If it wasn't, then the park service will catch hell from the environmental activists. Either way, reading two articles written by news hacks who've never seen wildlife bigger than a alley cat, is not enough information to decide. Why assume the worst of someone??
Rangers are typically environmentalistsmohair_chair
Oct 9, 2003 7:50 AM
The article I read was an AP report, and contained many direct quotes from the rangers. That's where "acting aggressive" came from, not some hack reporter.

It just seems to me that the rangers put themselves into a situation where they would have to shoot the bears. They didn't need to be there long enough to attract bears, and when faced with aggressive bears, they should have withdrawn. Helicopter in, get the remains, and get out. Instead of killing the bears, who's only sin is being a bear, the rangers could leave and come back later. As many times as it takes. I don't believe any ranger who is an environmentalist believes shooting bears is better than evacuating the scene. The people were already dead--they aren't going to get any deadder by waiting a few more hours.

By the way, you mentioned shooting bears because they've attacked humans and therefore might do it again. Katmai, where all this happened, is far, far from civilization. The only way to get there is to fly in, and only hunters, fishermen, and thrillseeking hikers go there. It's not like bears in the city. And it's not a drive-in zoo like Yellowstone. At any given moment, there are probably less than 100 people in the entire park, which is a very large place.
Do you have the link to that article?Kristin
Oct 9, 2003 8:02 AM
Of course the AP IS a news organization. Was the author of the peice is a back country enthusiast? And I know this is the wilderness; but people still hike thru. A bear that has mauled a person in the past is more likely to do it again if they see another person, than one who has not. That's just the way it is. I'm not saying I like it or am happy over the decisions made. Only that can understand why they did what they did.
here's a link with a better descriptionMJ
Oct 9, 2003 8:38 AM
http://www.adn.com/front/story/4110831p-4127072c.html

it explains why the Rangers couldn't get in and get out - at least one of the bears was sitting on "human remains"... and couldn't be scared off - but if you wanna go and question how the Rangers do their job you be my guest - however, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt rather than arm-chairing their decisions from my comfy office where bear attacks are less frequent and something I don't have any experience of... yet
Here is another useful linkKristin
Oct 9, 2003 8:43 AM
This is the USGS Alaska Research Center's site. They do a ton of research in that park and in Denali. Read their guidelines on bear safety. I garantee you that the park "conservationsist" -- the men who shot the bears -- are very well versed in and agree with these guidlines 100%. These guys are avid, rugged outdoors men, trained in search and rescue. They are not beer swilling yahoos with shotguns, looking for target practice.

http://www.absc.usgs.gov/research/brownbears/brownbears.htm
just becauseMJ
Oct 9, 2003 9:03 AM
they're rugged outdoors men trained in Search and Rescue (ooh I'm getting excited!) - does not mean that they're not also beer swilling yahoos with shotguns looking for target practice - after all everybody gets a weekend?

:-)
oh pleasemohair_chair
Oct 9, 2003 9:17 AM
I read that article and it said nothing about how they couldn't get in or out. All it said is they hiked up from the beach.

So let's evaluate the situation, just like the rangers certainly did.

1. We see a bear sitting on human remains. What does that mean? It means a human is dead, and a bear probably wants to eat the body.

2. We tried to scare the bear off, but it won't budge. What does that mean? What it doesn't mean is that the bear is just being stubborn, and maybe we can reason with it if we go in on foot and have a good talk over donuts and coffee. But that's apparently what they planned to do. Or more accurately, let's poke it with a stick, and see what it does. We can always shoot it if it doesn't turn out to be funny. These bears don't seem to be smarter than the average bear.

Too bad if the bear is sitting on human remains and can't be scared off. Did killing the bear bring the human back? What's the rush? So it takes longer to recover the bodies of thrillseekers who purposely put themselves in harm's way. So what? Let their families wait. It sure beats putting ranger's lives at risk. It sure beats killing bears for being bears.

What exactly was accomplished, other than the death of two bears?
maybe saving the life of more *humans*? nmDougSloan
Oct 9, 2003 9:21 AM
What article did you read?gf99
Oct 9, 2003 9:44 AM
From MJ's link:

"Park rangers were the first to arrive. They hiked from the beach toward a knob above the camp hoping to be able to survey the scene from a distance. They had no sooner reached the top of the knob, however, than they were charged by a large brown bear.
It was shot and killed at a distance of about 12 feet."

I guess they had ... oh ... about one second to evaluate the situation before acting to save their lives. Despite their size and appearance, bears are very quick over a short distance.

It's really too bad about the bears, but the blame doesn't lie with the rangers.
and the part about pilot getting charged and buzzing the bearMJ
Oct 10, 2003 12:09 AM
What transpired in the hours after the phone call is unknown. The Kodiak pilot who arrived at the Treadwell camp the next day was met by a charging brown bear. The bear forced the pilot for Andrew Airways back to his floatplane.

Authorities said he took off and buzzed the bear several times in an effort to drive it out of the area, but it would not leave the campsite established by Treadwell and Huguenard. When the pilot spotted the bear apparently sitting on the remains of a human, authorities said, he flew back to the lake, landed, beached his plane some distance from the camp and called for help from troopers and the Park Service.

Interviews with sources who were on the scene provided this account:

Park rangers were the first to arrive. They hiked from the beach toward a knob above the camp hoping to be able to survey the scene from a distance. They had no sooner reached the top of the knob, however, than they were charged by a large brown bear.
lol#2 is classic. Maybe the bear was just trying to help128
Oct 9, 2003 10:01 AM
That's what Ziegfried is saying about the tiger attack anyway. Animal behavior can be difficult to interpret.

I often wonder why tranquilizers and non-lethal methods aren't utilized more often against animals and humans. This sure looks like a case where they could have used non-lethal methods.

Play with fire and you might get burned.
exactly nmmohair_chair
Oct 9, 2003 10:22 AM
Tranquiliser gunsFr Ted Crilly
Oct 9, 2003 12:42 PM
I'm no expert on these matters, but doesn't the drug in a tranquiliser dart take some time, (up to a minute or two), to take effect? If so, it could hardly be an option when being charged by a grizzly.
Yellowstonemoneyman
Oct 9, 2003 10:42 AM
I don't know when you were there last, but it is no zoo. About 90% of all people who visit Yellowstone go no further than the roads or the sites adjacent to the roads. And that area makes up only a small percentage of the total area of the park. The rest of the park is wilderness, and I can assure you that the animals - including the bears - are quite wild. There are many grizzly bears in Yellowstone, but they are seldom seen because they prefer the wild areas to the popular tourist attractions. I have been to Yellowstone probably 100 times, both on the trails and off, and bears command your respect and attention.

And a grizzly can run up to 30 miles an hour for an extended period. One that dies twelve feet from the person who shot it was not just "aggressive" - it was attacking. Those bears on Katmai can weigh near 1,000 pounds and stand 10 feet or more whenon their hind legs. To have half a ton of really pissed off carnivore coming at you at 30 miles per hour would have you on edge as well. Its unfortunate the bears died, but I don't think the ranger had too many alternatives.

$$
Missing the pointfiltersweep
Oct 9, 2003 6:42 PM
The original two humans were WAY TOO CLOSE to the bears- in fact as photographers, they were likely "stalking" the bears- and their proximity- and remember, they went LOOKING for bears... it was their choice- and they found bears, and bears attacked (as bears do) and the humans died...

-all this CAUSED the situation that "required" killing the bears. I'm not even second-guessing the policy of killing bears that acquire a taste for human flesh at this point...
OKmoneyman
Oct 10, 2003 6:42 AM
I'll agree with you. I read that the two had been involved with these bears for years, especially the man. He described the bears as big, fuzzy, lovable creatures. He would live with them, being very, very close to them. He named them and played with them. The thing he seems to have forgotten is that they are wild, unpredicatble, dangerous, and, as it turned out, capable and willing to turn humans into lunch. I think there are probably other ways to study bears than his methodology.

It is tragic that the two bears were killed. Had the two who were killed used better judgment, things would likely have ended much better.

I understand the pilot who found them was shaken. Sad situation all around.

$$
If you didn't have two dead people, their story would....MR_GRUMPY
Oct 9, 2003 6:56 AM
be really funny. Bears are our friends, if you treat them as equals, they will love you for it. Love you to pieces.
Really sadmickey-mac
Oct 9, 2003 7:08 AM
Because of their own stupidity, they're dead. They knew the risks and suffered the consequences. Rangers in the area said it was just a matter of time until one or both of them were killed. Unfortunately, a bear had to be killed because of their stupidity. That's the sad part.
digital camera for sale; here's the last shot taken:DougSloan
Oct 9, 2003 8:21 AM