Black bear attacks mountain biker in Washington State park



Y

y_p_w

Guest
On Sep 5, 4:53 pm, [email protected] (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >Mike, your ignorance of wildlife and factless statements become irritating.

>
> True.
>
> >While black bear attacks on humans are rather rare, as a carnivore, they can
> >and do attack humans from time to time. The probability of an attack is
> >measured in the 1 to 400 million or more (given the number of recreational
> >visitor days a year in black bear country).

>
> I assume all of that is correct. I don't see it as
> significant, one way or another. If you are in bear
> country... *do* be concerned.
>
> >The motivation for the attack
> >can range from protecting cubs (and yes I would suggest this is one of the
> >more common reasons),

>
> That is common _only_ for brown bears.


The black bear incident reports I've read show a high proportion of
attacks were by sows with cubs. It may not be "common" in absolute
numbers, but seem to be common as far as (generally rare) black bear
attacks go.

> >to being startled or surprised by human (usually
> >hikers on a trail) appearing in their path,

>
> Again, _only_ for brown bears.


Not being startled seems to be important. I love hearing the stories
of bear researchers monitoring black bears with spotting scopes. The
one story that was intriguing was about hikers on the trail. The
bears were extremely aware of the humans in the area (moved away
accordingly), but the hikers had no idea there were bears.
 
I

Ist-e Mundus, Furia bundus

Guest

>>>>
>>>>How do you know it was defending cubs? The article only says "may have
>>>>been", and that there was a report of a bear with two cubs. No guarantee
>>>>it
>>>>was the same bear as "bears are not uncommon at the park". There you go
>>>>leaping to conclusions again, reaffirming your status as the primo
>>>>number
>>>>one twit-extraordinaire on usenet.
>>>
>>> It's a well-known fact that black bears don't attack humans, except to
>>> defend their cubs. Do you think it was offended by the color of his
>>> outfit?!
>>> --

>> You're joking, right? Well known fact? I've rarely heard such a sweeping
>>and baseless statement, but I should expect it from you. Black bears are
>>more unpredictable than grizzlies, and more likely to attack without
>>provocation. That is not to say there was no provocation in this incident,
>>intentional or otherwise. To say "It's a well-known fact that black bears
>>don't attack humans, except to
>> defend their cubs." is absolute stupidity and is a classic display of
>>your near complete ignorance.

>
> I notice that you can't given even ONE other reason.
> --
> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>


I mistakenly believed you read the other posts indicating the probability
that the dogs were a provocation, although bears do not always need
provocation. Silly me, thinking that you are capable of thinking. Back to
the original response. Are you actually serious about the "It's a well-known
fact that black bears don't attack humans, except to defend their cubs."
****? Was that simply grasping at straws, snatched from the air, made or
otherwise dreamed up? Well, it doesn't really matter since you have zero
credibility in any event.
 
B

Bill Z.

Guest
"Ist-e Mundus, Furia bundus" <[email protected]> writes:
<other posters quotes snipped>

> Are you actually serious about the "It's a well-known
> fact that black bears don't attack humans, except to defend their cubs."
> ****?


<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America_by_decade>:

" It should be noted that black bear biologists consider black
bear attacks as very rare. Fewer people are killed by black
bears than slip and fall accidents, traffic accidents and
lightning."

One black-bear related injury that occurred in Yosemite was due to
some guy hanging his food from the limb of a tree and pitching a
tent right below it. A bear cub went out on the limb to try to
get it, fell off, and landed on the guy, breaking some ribs.

Some incidents may have been caused by keeping food in the tent.
The bear might have been after the food with the attack being
incidental or the result of being surprised.

That doesn't, of course, mean that unprovoked attacks by black bears
are impossible, but they are very rare occurrences.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 22:05:35 -0700, y_p_w <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sep 4, 9:19 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:46:48 -0700,y_p_w<[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On Sep 4, 2:29 pm, Bruce Jensen <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> On Sep 4, 1:46 pm,y_p_w<[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>> >> > WTF?

>>
>> >> > Tell that to the family in Utah whose 11 year old was dragged out of
>> >> > their tent and killed in June by a male black bear. Male black bears
>> >> > aren't known for being protective of their cubs. Some are known to
>> >> > attack cubs, which could include their own young.

>>
>> >> Yeah, but we are not at this point talking specfiically about a male
>> >> or female bear. There is a reasonable chance that the bear in
>> >> question was a female with cubs, based on other testimony. At the
>> >> very least, it was surprised.

>>
>> >> The Utah incident above also involved some questionable human-food
>> >> handling, IIRC.

>>
>> >Sure. However - the attack was for a different reason than a black
>> >bear sow defending its cubs.

>>
>> I don't know that that was an "attack". It was probably simply
>> following the smell of food.

>
>Dragging an 11 year old 400 yards from a tent was an attack.


BS. He was taking what he thought was food to his picnic area. If he
wanted to "attack" the kid, there would be no need to move him.

Possibly
>one that could have been avoided, but still an attack. Bears have
>been known to claw/bite people if they think they can get food.
>
>> I notice that you haven't offered any other reason for a black bear to
>> attack a human, even though you say there are such reasons.

>
>Are you freaking kidding me? They'll attack when startled. I've read
>of numerous incidents where someone was clawed or bitten when a bear
>was surprised by a person while it was going through garbage/food. My
>favorite stories are about idiots feeding bears that just turned on
>them. Some attacks have been seemly random, like the Cherokee
>National Forest mauling in 2006. That was just a family on the trail,
>attacked by a male bear. It was also exceedingly rare.
>
>http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_87516.asp
>
>I posted this earlier, but I guess it's not valid if it doesn't
>validate your ill-advised statements:
>
>http://www.dfg.ca.gov/news/issues/bear/bear_incidents.html
>
>"Los Angeles County, July 2003 - A male hiker was knocked down by a
>bear at a remote campsite along the Pacific Crest Trail in the Angeles
>National Forest. The hiker had just reached the camp, which was empty,
>dropped his pack on a picnic table, and was looking for a place to
>hang his food. As he walked back toward the pack, he heard a noise
>behind him. As he turned he was knocked to the ground by a bear. After
>standing over him for a few seconds, the bear grabbed the backpack and
>began dragging it off. The man shouted at the bear and threw rocks
>until the bear finally retreated without the backpack. The hiker
>received only minor bruises and was not seriously hurt.
>
>Los Angeles County, July 2001 - A woman was bitten on the arm by a
>bear at a county-run tree farm near La Verne. The bear, which was
>earlier spotted climbing on a nearby trash can, reportedly walked up
>to the woman while she was seated at a picnic table and bit her on the
>arm. The woman was treated at a hospital for puncture wounds. The bear
>was later shot and killed by Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies.
>The bear weighed approximately 85 pounds and was estimated at one to
>two years of age.
>
>Trinity County, May 1986 - A 35-year old man was attacked at around 3
>a.m. while camping in a tent in the Trinity Alps Wilderness. The
>victim felt that he was caught in the middle of a fight between two
>boars when one bear attacked him in his tent. The bear left when the
>victim hit the bear with a tentpole. Two bears then returned and acted
>aggressively toward each another before they finally left. The victim
>sustained several puncture wounds to his shoulder and lacerations to
>the back of his head.
>
>Siskiyou County, September 1986 - A long-time resident of a small
>rural community was injured while feeding a bear at his residence. The
>victim had been feeding bears at this location for more than 30
>years."


So that's just incidental to feeding (getting competitors for the food
out of the way). It's not an "attack" on a person.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 22:53:04 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>Mike, your ignorance of wildlife and factless statements become irritating.
>While black bear attacks on humans are rather rare, as a carnivore, they can
>and do attack humans from time to time. The probability of an attack is
>measured in the 1 to 400 million or more (given the number of recreational
>visitor days a year in black bear country). The motivation for the attack
>can range from protecting cubs (and yes I would suggest this is one of the
>more common reasons), to being startled or surprised by human (usually
>hikers on a trail) appearing in their path, to viewing humans as a
>competitor (i.e., protecting a food source) to even viewing humans in very
>rare cases as a form of food (what appears to have happen in Utah).


I doubt it. He peobably smelled human food on & near the boy. Did the
bear eat the whole kid?

The
>bear in Utah had apparently bothered someone in a tent the previous day and
>the bear did not stumble into the tent looking for food, sliced the tent
>open and took the boy (much as they do fawns) off into the brush to eat him.
> I can provide reasonable assurance, he was not frisking the boy for a PB&J,
>but actually viewed him as food.


You haven't provided a shred of evidence, just opinion. If 99.99% of
bears don't see humans as food, but only as a source of human food,
it's very unlikely that one bear would be different.

We are left with a great deal of
>uncertainty as to why this particular bear saw this boy in this case as food
>as these types of events are rare and therefore we lack any statistical
>reason to account for it. The crazy bear theory is as good as any. Some
>carnivores (as a species) are rather aggressive toward humans such as
>leopards, tigers and African lions, while others only rarely cross that line
>- black bears fall into the latter category.
>
>While it is not unreasonable to querry the use the lethal option in this
>case - keep in mind, Wildlife Services and timber companies are killing
>thousands of bears a year for girdling trees, while sport hunters throughout
>North America are killing several thousand more. In addition, state game
>agencies in North America are killing several hundred more bears because of
>bear-human conflicts. Placed into context, the loss of one bear from a mt.
>biker pales when compared to the thousands upon thousands of bears killed
>because of real or percieved conflicts with humans on foot.


As usual, your argument is that because lots of bears are being
killed, one more is harmless. Of course, that doesn't logically
follow. It's just typical human rationalization.

>ummm, do you think Mikey has lost all perceptive. Yeah.

--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
Y

y_p_w

Guest
On Sep 6, 8:33 am, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 22:05:35 -0700, y_p_w <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Sep 4, 9:19 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:46:48 -0700,y_p_w<[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >On Sep 4, 2:29 pm, Bruce Jensen <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> On Sep 4, 1:46 pm,y_p_w<[email protected]> wrote:

>
> >> >> > WTF?

>
> >> >> > Tell that to the family in Utah whose 11 year old was dragged out of
> >> >> > their tent and killed in June by a male black bear. Male black bears
> >> >> > aren't known for being protective of their cubs. Some are known to
> >> >> > attack cubs, which could include their own young.

>
> >> >> Yeah, but we are not at this point talking specfiically about a male
> >> >> or female bear. There is a reasonable chance that the bear in
> >> >> question was a female with cubs, based on other testimony. At the
> >> >> very least, it was surprised.

>
> >> >> The Utah incident above also involved some questionable human-food
> >> >> handling, IIRC.

>
> >> >Sure. However - the attack was for a different reason than a black
> >> >bear sow defending its cubs.

>
> >> I don't know that that was an "attack". It was probably simply
> >> following the smell of food.

>
> >Dragging an 11 year old 400 yards from a tent was an attack.

>
> BS. He was taking what he thought was food to his picnic area. If he
> wanted to "attack" the kid, there would be no need to move him.
>
> Possibly
>
>
>
> >one that could have been avoided, but still an attack. Bears have
> >been known to claw/bite people if they think they can get food.

>
> >> I notice that you haven't offered any other reason for a black bear to
> >> attack a human, even though you say there are such reasons.

>
> >Are you freaking kidding me? They'll attack when startled. I've read
> >of numerous incidents where someone was clawed or bitten when a bear
> >was surprised by a person while it was going through garbage/food. My
> >favorite stories are about idiots feeding bears that just turned on
> >them. Some attacks have been seemly random, like the Cherokee
> >National Forest mauling in 2006. That was just a family on the trail,
> >attacked by a male bear. It was also exceedingly rare.

>
> >http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_87516.asp

>
> >I posted this earlier, but I guess it's not valid if it doesn't
> >validate your ill-advised statements:

>
> >http://www.dfg.ca.gov/news/issues/bear/bear_incidents.html

>
> >"Los Angeles County, July 2003 - A male hiker was knocked down by a
> >bear at a remote campsite along the Pacific Crest Trail in the Angeles
> >National Forest. The hiker had just reached the camp, which was empty,
> >dropped his pack on a picnic table, and was looking for a place to
> >hang his food. As he walked back toward the pack, he heard a noise
> >behind him. As he turned he was knocked to the ground by a bear. After
> >standing over him for a few seconds, the bear grabbed the backpack and
> >began dragging it off. The man shouted at the bear and threw rocks
> >until the bear finally retreated without the backpack. The hiker
> >received only minor bruises and was not seriously hurt.

>
> >Los Angeles County, July 2001 - A woman was bitten on the arm by a
> >bear at a county-run tree farm near La Verne. The bear, which was
> >earlier spotted climbing on a nearby trash can, reportedly walked up
> >to the woman while she was seated at a picnic table and bit her on the
> >arm. The woman was treated at a hospital for puncture wounds. The bear
> >was later shot and killed by Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies.
> >The bear weighed approximately 85 pounds and was estimated at one to
> >two years of age.

>
> >Trinity County, May 1986 - A 35-year old man was attacked at around 3
> >a.m. while camping in a tent in the Trinity Alps Wilderness. The
> >victim felt that he was caught in the middle of a fight between two
> >boars when one bear attacked him in his tent. The bear left when the
> >victim hit the bear with a tentpole. Two bears then returned and acted
> >aggressively toward each another before they finally left. The victim
> >sustained several puncture wounds to his shoulder and lacerations to
> >the back of his head.

>
> >Siskiyou County, September 1986 - A long-time resident of a small
> >rural community was injured while feeding a bear at his residence. The
> >victim had been feeding bears at this location for more than 30
> >years."

>
> So that's just incidental to feeding (getting competitors for the food
> out of the way). It's not an "attack" on a person.


Knocking/clawing/biting someone to get to food is still an attack,
even if just part of a plan to secure food. If someone punches/clubs
another person in order to steal a wallet, is that not an "attack"?
There are also plenty of documented incidents of bears injuring/
attacking people where there was no food being fought over nor cubs to
defend.

And I see you have no answer for the 2006 Cherokee National Forest
black bear attack. Again - male bear. No food being raided.

http://www.southeasternoutdoors.com/wildlife/mammals/cherokee-fatal-bear-attack.html

Here's a known predatory attack:

http://www.southeasternoutdoors.com/wildlife/mammals/smoky-mountain-fatal-bear-attack.html

"Subsequent necropsies preformed at the University of Tennessee
confirmed that both bears the rangers killed had fed on Ms. Bradley
and were most likely the bears that had killed her. The bears were not
emaciated and the necropsies did not reveal any underlying health
issues with the bears that may have contributed to the attack. This
lead officials to believe the attack was a predatory."

Certainly I'm not trying to employ any scare tactics against people
visiting the woods. Incidents like this are extremely rare, but I'm
not going to sit by while the completely wrong statement "It's a well-
known fact that black bears don't attack humans, except to defend
their cubs." is passed on as the truth.
 
On 6-Sep-2007, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 22:53:04 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Mike, your ignorance of wildlife and factless statements become
> >irritating.
> >While black bear attacks on humans are rather rare, as a carnivore, they
> >can
> >and do attack humans from time to time. The probability of an attack is
> >measured in the 1 to 400 million or more (given the number of
> >recreational
> >visitor days a year in black bear country). The motivation for the
> >attack
> >can range from protecting cubs (and yes I would suggest this is one of
> >the
> >more common reasons), to being startled or surprised by human (usually
> >hikers on a trail) appearing in their path, to viewing humans as a
> >competitor (i.e., protecting a food source) to even viewing humans in
> >very
> >rare cases as a form of food (what appears to have happen in Utah).

>
> I doubt it. He peobably smelled human food on & near the boy. Did the
> bear eat the whole kid?


He had fed on the kid but was killed before he devoured him.


> he
> >bear in Utah had apparently bothered someone in a tent the previous day
> >and
> >the bear did not stumble into the tent looking for food, sliced the tent
> >open and took the boy (much as they do fawns) off into the brush to eat
> >him.
> > I can provide reasonable assurance, he was not frisking the boy for a
> > PB&J,
> >but actually viewed him as food.

>
> You haven't provided a shred of evidence, just opinion. If 99.99% of
> bears don't see humans as food, but only as a source of human food,
> it's very unlikely that one bear would be different.


There have been 53 documented mauling deaths by black bears between 1900
and 2003 (and a couple since then) in all of North America. In the grand
scheme
of things very rare, but not zero. Bears while
carnivores tend to have an omivorous diet, but meat is very much part of it
as
they can be signficant predators on elk calves and deer fawns. Bears (as
all wildlife)
are not born with a moral compass which they some how know it is wrong to
kill a human
(as they might an elk calve, fawn or other prey they regularly feed on).
While we can say
with certainty (read that as statistically) that bears do not view humans as
food -
they rarely (as I note in the 1 to 400 million or so plus range) attack us
and sometimes
their motivation as we have been able to determine is predatory in nature -
that
is factual - I suggest you review the available data bases on documented
deaths before you continue to act stupid. I said it is rare, but not zero.
What is surprising and interesting is why some predators (leopards, tigers,
African lion)
more commonly kill people, while other larger carnivores (cougars and black
bears to name a couple) rarely do. Many scientist suggest a strong genetic
component (e.g., Vancouver Island an area of 12,000 square miles has more
cougar
attacks by 2 than California which has nearly 100,000 square miles of cougar
habitat
one hypothesis is the population of cougars on VI ended up with a more
aggressive strain -
founder effect) to agressive behavior. You are right to suggest attacks
are rare, but dead ass wrong to argue black bears ( a predator) never
attacks humans
because they see us as prey.


> As usual, your argument is that because lots of bears are being
> killed, one more is harmless. Of course, that doesn't logically
> follow. It's just typical human rationalization.


Again, you have no reading comprehension. I did not say one more is
harmless as I
clearly stated debates about relying soley on lethal options are very valid,
but I did
state that one more is ecologically insignificant. We (meaning society)
kills
about 10,000 (or more) black bears a year - in the last ten years that means
we humans have killed in the neighborhood of 100,000 (or more bears) and a
mt.
biker was responsible for 1. Hikers and people on foot are responsible for
most of the rest

Umm, I will waste band width on a red-herring or maybe work
on a much more difficult problem and try and effect a broad change
on how society as a whole affects large predators.

We all know Mikey's choice and how irrelevant he is.


if you want to have an affect,
figure out how to reduce the human caused mortality by a bunch.
 
P

Puppet_Sock

Guest
On Sep 3, 12:23 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
> Spokesman Ron Powers said a 51-year-old Port Orchard man was biking
> with his two dogs alongside him when the dogs ran ahead and around the
> bend, then started barking fiercely. The man turned the bend and saw
> the dogs were barking at a bear.


Is this git going to be punished for breaking park rules?

http://www.kitsapgov.com/parks/heritageparks/Banner Forest rules.htm

> Animals: Pets, horses and domesticated animals allowed
> on designated trails only - leashed.


He was in a leash area with two loose dogs.

It's only a possibility, but I'm wondering if the bear was trying to
cross the trail ahead of the biker, and the dogs caused it to panic.
If the dogs had not run ahead, the bear might have just gone
off into the woods and nobody would ever have known it was around.

Result: He was injured, the bear is likely to be killed, and one
of his dogs may be dead in the woods. Plus a lot of disruption
for the park, and probably over time for the park employees.

It's not a story about a mountain biker at all. It's a story about
a git who thinks the world is his dog's toilet.
Socks
 
P

Puppet_Sock

Guest
On Sep 6, 12:12 am, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
[snip]
> One black-bear related injury that occurred in Yosemite was due to
> some guy hanging his food from the limb of a tree and pitching a
> tent right below it. A bear cub went out on the limb to try to
> get it, fell off, and landed on the guy, breaking some ribs.


I should know better than to read the news groups in the office.
Now I have to explain the noise I made when I read that.
Socks
 
On 6-Sep-2007, You <[email protected]> wrote:

> While black bear attacks on humans are rather rare, as a carnivore,
>
> actually Black Bears are Omnivores....


More precisely, black bears are in the Class Mammalia, Order Carnivora
(carnivores they have for instance a carnasial pair), Family Ursidae and yes
their diet is omnivorous, but they are classified as a carnivore. Ther is
no order Ominivore it refers to a diet not a taxonomic group.
 
B

Bill Z.

Guest
Puppet_Sock <[email protected]> writes:

> On Sep 6, 12:12 am, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
> [snip]
> > One black-bear related injury that occurred in Yosemite was due to
> > some guy hanging his food from the limb of a tree and pitching a
> > tent right below it. A bear cub went out on the limb to try to
> > get it, fell off, and landed on the guy, breaking some ribs.

>
> I should know better than to read the news groups in the office.
> Now I have to explain the noise I made when I read that.
> Socks


..... yeah, it is pretty funny - and I heard the story from one of
the rangers, not some random person.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 18:24:52 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>
>On 6-Sep-2007, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 22:53:04 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >Mike, your ignorance of wildlife and factless statements become
>> >irritating.
>> >While black bear attacks on humans are rather rare, as a carnivore, they
>> >can
>> >and do attack humans from time to time. The probability of an attack is
>> >measured in the 1 to 400 million or more (given the number of
>> >recreational
>> >visitor days a year in black bear country). The motivation for the
>> >attack
>> >can range from protecting cubs (and yes I would suggest this is one of
>> >the
>> >more common reasons), to being startled or surprised by human (usually
>> >hikers on a trail) appearing in their path, to viewing humans as a
>> >competitor (i.e., protecting a food source) to even viewing humans in
>> >very
>> >rare cases as a form of food (what appears to have happen in Utah).

>>
>> I doubt it. He peobably smelled human food on & near the boy. Did the
>> bear eat the whole kid?

>
>He had fed on the kid but was killed before he devoured him.


It would be easy to determine if he was prey, but I suspect that the
research has never been done and never will be done: coat one boy with
honey (or any other human food) and another boy with none. See which
one the bear "attacks". I'll bet it would be the former, proving that
we are not prey. Since you cite no such research, I suspect that you
are just giving your OPINION, as usual.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:25:03 -0700, y_p_w <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sep 6, 8:33 am, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 22:05:35 -0700, y_p_w <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On Sep 4, 9:19 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:46:48 -0700,y_p_w<[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >On Sep 4, 2:29 pm, Bruce Jensen <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> On Sep 4, 1:46 pm,y_p_w<[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>> >> >> > WTF?

>>
>> >> >> > Tell that to the family in Utah whose 11 year old was dragged out of
>> >> >> > their tent and killed in June by a male black bear. Male black bears
>> >> >> > aren't known for being protective of their cubs. Some are known to
>> >> >> > attack cubs, which could include their own young.

>>
>> >> >> Yeah, but we are not at this point talking specfiically about a male
>> >> >> or female bear. There is a reasonable chance that the bear in
>> >> >> question was a female with cubs, based on other testimony. At the
>> >> >> very least, it was surprised.

>>
>> >> >> The Utah incident above also involved some questionable human-food
>> >> >> handling, IIRC.

>>
>> >> >Sure. However - the attack was for a different reason than a black
>> >> >bear sow defending its cubs.

>>
>> >> I don't know that that was an "attack". It was probably simply
>> >> following the smell of food.

>>
>> >Dragging an 11 year old 400 yards from a tent was an attack.

>>
>> BS. He was taking what he thought was food to his picnic area. If he
>> wanted to "attack" the kid, there would be no need to move him.
>>
>> Possibly
>>
>>
>>
>> >one that could have been avoided, but still an attack. Bears have
>> >been known to claw/bite people if they think they can get food.

>>
>> >> I notice that you haven't offered any other reason for a black bear to
>> >> attack a human, even though you say there are such reasons.

>>
>> >Are you freaking kidding me? They'll attack when startled. I've read
>> >of numerous incidents where someone was clawed or bitten when a bear
>> >was surprised by a person while it was going through garbage/food. My
>> >favorite stories are about idiots feeding bears that just turned on
>> >them. Some attacks have been seemly random, like the Cherokee
>> >National Forest mauling in 2006. That was just a family on the trail,
>> >attacked by a male bear. It was also exceedingly rare.

>>
>> >http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_87516.asp

>>
>> >I posted this earlier, but I guess it's not valid if it doesn't
>> >validate your ill-advised statements:

>>
>> >http://www.dfg.ca.gov/news/issues/bear/bear_incidents.html

>>
>> >"Los Angeles County, July 2003 - A male hiker was knocked down by a
>> >bear at a remote campsite along the Pacific Crest Trail in the Angeles
>> >National Forest. The hiker had just reached the camp, which was empty,
>> >dropped his pack on a picnic table, and was looking for a place to
>> >hang his food. As he walked back toward the pack, he heard a noise
>> >behind him. As he turned he was knocked to the ground by a bear. After
>> >standing over him for a few seconds, the bear grabbed the backpack and
>> >began dragging it off. The man shouted at the bear and threw rocks
>> >until the bear finally retreated without the backpack. The hiker
>> >received only minor bruises and was not seriously hurt.

>>
>> >Los Angeles County, July 2001 - A woman was bitten on the arm by a
>> >bear at a county-run tree farm near La Verne. The bear, which was
>> >earlier spotted climbing on a nearby trash can, reportedly walked up
>> >to the woman while she was seated at a picnic table and bit her on the
>> >arm. The woman was treated at a hospital for puncture wounds. The bear
>> >was later shot and killed by Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies.
>> >The bear weighed approximately 85 pounds and was estimated at one to
>> >two years of age.

>>
>> >Trinity County, May 1986 - A 35-year old man was attacked at around 3
>> >a.m. while camping in a tent in the Trinity Alps Wilderness. The
>> >victim felt that he was caught in the middle of a fight between two
>> >boars when one bear attacked him in his tent. The bear left when the
>> >victim hit the bear with a tentpole. Two bears then returned and acted
>> >aggressively toward each another before they finally left. The victim
>> >sustained several puncture wounds to his shoulder and lacerations to
>> >the back of his head.

>>
>> >Siskiyou County, September 1986 - A long-time resident of a small
>> >rural community was injured while feeding a bear at his residence. The
>> >victim had been feeding bears at this location for more than 30
>> >years."

>>
>> So that's just incidental to feeding (getting competitors for the food
>> out of the way). It's not an "attack" on a person.

>
>Knocking/clawing/biting someone to get to food is still an attack,
>even if just part of a plan to secure food. If someone punches/clubs
>another person in order to steal a wallet, is that not an "attack"?
>There are also plenty of documented incidents of bears injuring/
>attacking people where there was no food being fought over nor cubs to
>defend.
>
>And I see you have no answer for the 2006 Cherokee National Forest
>black bear attack. Again - male bear. No food being raided.
>
>http://www.southeasternoutdoors.com/wildlife/mammals/cherokee-fatal-bear-attack.html
>
>Here's a known predatory attack:
>
>http://www.southeasternoutdoors.com/wildlife/mammals/smoky-mountain-fatal-bear-attack.html
>
>"Subsequent necropsies preformed at the University of Tennessee
>confirmed that both bears the rangers killed had fed on Ms. Bradley
>and were most likely the bears that had killed her. The bears were not
>emaciated and the necropsies did not reveal any underlying health
>issues with the bears that may have contributed to the attack. This
>lead officials to believe the attack was a predatory."
>
>Certainly I'm not trying to employ any scare tactics against people
>visiting the woods. Incidents like this are extremely rare, but I'm
>not going to sit by while the completely wrong statement "It's a well-
>known fact that black bears don't attack humans, except to defend
>their cubs." is passed on as the truth.


Statistically, it's true.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
F

Floyd L. Davidson

Guest
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Certainly I'm not trying to employ any scare tactics against people
>>visiting the woods. Incidents like this are extremely rare, but I'm
>>not going to sit by while the completely wrong statement "It's a well-
>>known fact that black bears don't attack humans, except to defend
>>their cubs." is passed on as the truth.

>
>Statistically, it's true.


Statistically, it is clearly a false statement.

Black bears do *not* attack a human in defense of cubs.
But if they attack, it is very likely to be with intent
to *eat* a human.

From a long list of characteristics, the last one listed
at <http://www.bear.org/Black/Black_Bear_Facts.html> is

Greatest misconception:

The greatest misconception about black bears is that
they are likely to attack people in defense of cubs.
They are highly unlikely to do this. Black bear
researchers often capture screaming cubs in the
presence of bluff-charging mothers with no attacks.
Defense of cubs is a grizzly bear trait. About 70
percent of human deaths from grizzly bears are from
mothers defending cubs, but black bear mothers have
not been known to kill anyone in defense of cubs.

Read that line again "not been know to kill anyone in
defense of cubs."

From 2000 to 2007 there have been 15 people killed by
black bears in North America. Of those, 7 (including
three children) were clearly predatory attacks. Just
more than half, 8 of the 15, cannot positively be
identified as an attack with intent to eat the victim.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) [email protected]
 
F

Floyd L. Davidson

Guest
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Certainly I'm not trying to employ any scare tactics against people
>>visiting the woods. Incidents like this are extremely rare, but I'm
>>not going to sit by while the completely wrong statement "It's a well-
>>known fact that black bears don't attack humans, except to defend
>>their cubs." is passed on as the truth.

>
>Statistically, it's true.


Statistically, it is clearly a false statement.

Black bears do *not* attack a human in defense of cubs.
But if they attack, it is very likely to be with intent
to *eat* a human.

From a long list of characteristics, the last one listed
at <http://www.bear.org/Black/Black_Bear_Facts.html> is

Greatest misconception:

The greatest misconception about black bears is that
they are likely to attack people in defense of cubs.
They are highly unlikely to do this. Black bear
researchers often capture screaming cubs in the
presence of bluff-charging mothers with no attacks.
Defense of cubs is a grizzly bear trait. About 70
percent of human deaths from grizzly bears are from
mothers defending cubs, but black bear mothers have
not been known to kill anyone in defense of cubs.

Read that line again "not been know to kill anyone in
defense of cubs."

From 2000 to 2007 there have been 15 people killed by
black bears in North America. Of those, 7 (including
three children) were clearly predatory attacks. Just
more than half, 8 of the 15, cannot positively be
identified as an attack with intent to eat the victim.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) [email protected]
 
On 7-Sep-2007, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:

> He had fed on the kid but was killed before he devoured him.
>
> It would be easy to determine if he was prey, but I suspect that the
> research has never been done and never will be done: coat one boy with
> honey (or any other human food) and another boy with none. See which
> one the bear "attacks". I'll bet it would be the former, proving that
> we are not prey. Since you cite no such research, I suspect that you
> are just giving your OPINION, as usual.
> --


Yes an opinion as a predator ecologist with 30 years experience studying
large predators
and human/predator conflicts. This opinion is also one that represents a
broad concesus within the scientific community. The largest problem with
lay persons
such as yourself, is that you advocate single explanations (which are rare),
e.g., (and I paraphrase) "bears attack
people to protect their cubs or they mistake us for food)". If you had
taken the trouble
to study the data bases of bear maulings, it will become clear that bear
attacks (like cougar
attacks, shark attacks, grizzly bear attacks) happen for a number of
reasons. There may be a
predominate reason but never a sinlge reason. Black bears while
ominivorous, are very
capable predators and regular eat meat when available. You misunderstand
science to
believe that experiments are the only way we gain knowldge. The late Ernst
Mayer, the Harvard evolutionary
biologist (and one the great scientist of the 20 century) once noted that
the vast majority of our scientific
knowldge has come not from experiments, but from observational studies
(e.g., Darwin's work).

Thus, those of us that study large predators and have investigated attacks
by predators on humans
have discovered that predators can and do attack us for a variety of reasons
- not just one. Large mammals are
intelligent beings (great capacity for learning) and as Teddy Roosevelt once
noted for the cougar, they are
all individuals with unique attributes and while we average their use of the
landscape or behavioral response to stimuli in
their environment, they all act somewhat differently and sometimes wildly
different.

So while we (as to most of the responders) all agree that black bear attacks
are rare (very rare in fact),
the motivation for these attacks are varied. In some cases we have good
information and can reasonably
surmise the motivation behind the attack and in others we are left with a
significant amount of
uncertainity and cannot. In all things biological, there is always some
level of uncertainity as we never really
know the truth. Modern science is based on Popperian logic, we disprove
hypotheses and never prove them.
There is always some doubt we have it right (why we know you can never be a
scientist as you never doubt
you preach, badly I might add). So I reitterate, we do not need experiments
to make reasonable inferences
regarding the motivation behind some attacks, and in some cases we will
never know.

Keep deluded yourself Mike.
 
M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 23:17:39 -0800, [email protected] (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Certainly I'm not trying to employ any scare tactics against people
>>>visiting the woods. Incidents like this are extremely rare, but I'm
>>>not going to sit by while the completely wrong statement "It's a well-
>>>known fact that black bears don't attack humans, except to defend
>>>their cubs." is passed on as the truth.

>>
>>Statistically, it's true.

>
>Statistically, it is clearly a false statement.
>
>Black bears do *not* attack a human in defense of cubs.
>But if they attack, it is very likely to be with intent
>to *eat* a human.
>
>From a long list of characteristics, the last one listed
>at <http://www.bear.org/Black/Black_Bear_Facts.html> is
>
> Greatest misconception:
>
> The greatest misconception about black bears is that
> they are likely to attack people in defense of cubs.
> They are highly unlikely to do this. Black bear
> researchers often capture screaming cubs in the
> presence of bluff-charging mothers with no attacks.
> Defense of cubs is a grizzly bear trait. About 70
> percent of human deaths from grizzly bears are from
> mothers defending cubs, but black bear mothers have
> not been known to kill anyone in defense of cubs.
>
>Read that line again "not been know to kill anyone in
>defense of cubs."
>
>From 2000 to 2007 there have been 15 people killed by
>black bears in North America. Of those, 7 (including
>three children) were clearly predatory attacks. Just
>more than half, 8 of the 15, cannot positively be
>identified as an attack with intent to eat the victim.


Is this relevant? Bears still should not be killed. They are only
doing what comes naturally to them, in THEIR habitat. Humans have no
business invading the bear's habitat, ESPECIALLY if it causes harm to
either party.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 13:29:00 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>
>On 7-Sep-2007, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> He had fed on the kid but was killed before he devoured him.
>>
>> It would be easy to determine if he was prey, but I suspect that the
>> research has never been done and never will be done: coat one boy with
>> honey (or any other human food) and another boy with none. See which
>> one the bear "attacks". I'll bet it would be the former, proving that
>> we are not prey. Since you cite no such research, I suspect that you
>> are just giving your OPINION, as usual.
>> --

>
>Yes an opinion as a predator ecologist with 30 years experience studying
>large predators
>and human/predator conflicts. This opinion is also one that represents a
>broad concesus within the scientific community. The largest problem with
>lay persons
>such as yourself, is that you advocate single explanations (which are rare),
>e.g., (and I paraphrase) "bears attack
>people to protect their cubs or they mistake us for food)". If you had
>taken the trouble
>to study the data bases of bear maulings, it will become clear that bear
>attacks (like cougar
>attacks, shark attacks, grizzly bear attacks) happen for a number of
>reasons. There may be a
>predominate reason but never a sinlge reason. Black bears while
>ominivorous, are very
>capable predators and regular eat meat when available. You misunderstand
>science to
>believe that experiments are the only way we gain knowldge. The late Ernst
>Mayer, the Harvard evolutionary
>biologist (and one the great scientist of the 20 century) once noted that
>the vast majority of our scientific
>knowldge has come not from experiments, but from observational studies
>(e.g., Darwin's work).


You completely miss the point. Observation provides DATA, but only an
experiment can determine causes, because only a controlled experiment
can separate out the various impinging factors.

>Thus, those of us that study large predators and have investigated attacks
>by predators on humans
>have discovered that predators can and do attack us for a variety of reasons
>- not just one. Large mammals are
>intelligent beings (great capacity for learning) and as Teddy Roosevelt once
>noted for the cougar, they are
>all individuals with unique attributes and while we average their use of the
>landscape or behavioral response to stimuli in
>their environment, they all act somewhat differently and sometimes wildly
>different.
>
>So while we (as to most of the responders) all agree that black bear attacks
>are rare (very rare in fact),
>the motivation for these attacks are varied. In some cases we have good
>information and can reasonably
>surmise the motivation behind the attack and in others we are left with a
>significant amount of
>uncertainity and cannot. In all things biological, there is always some
>level of uncertainity as we never really
>know the truth.


Mostly because you refuse to use the scientific method, and do
EXPERIMENTS.

Modern science is based on Popperian logic, we disprove
>hypotheses and never prove them.
>There is always some doubt we have it right (why we know you can never be a
>scientist as you never doubt
>you preach, badly I might add). So I reitterate, we do not need experiments
>to make reasonable inferences
>regarding the motivation behind some attacks, and in some cases we will
>never know.
>
>Keep deluded yourself Mike.


Your utter lack of understanding of the scientific method is duly
noted. You pass off your opinions as facts, and never investigate
farther. This is exactly why biology has remained so far behind
physics and chemistry and still has to qualify every statement with
words like "might" and "perhaps".
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
B

Bill Z.

Guest
[email protected] writes:

> On 7-Sep-2007, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > He had fed on the kid but was killed before he devoured him.
> >
> > It would be easy to determine if he was prey, but I suspect that
> > the research has never been done and never will be done: coat one
> > boy with honey (or any other human food) and another boy with
> > none. See which one the bear "attacks". I'll bet it would be the
> > former, proving that we are not prey. Since you cite no such
> > research, I suspect that you are just giving your OPINION, as
> > usual.

>
> Yes an opinion as a predator ecologist with 30 years experience
> studying large predators and human/predator conflicts. This opinion
> is also one that represents a broad concesus within the scientific
> community. <snip>
>
> Thus, those of us that study large predators and have investigated
> attacks by predators on humans have discovered that predators can
> and do attack us for a variety of reasons - not just one. Large
> mammals are intelligent beings (great capacity for learning) and as
> Teddy Roosevelt once noted for the cougar, they are all individuals
> with unique attributes and while we average their use of the
> landscape or behavioral response to stimuli in their environment,
> they all act somewhat differently and sometimes wildly different.


If I remember correctly, there were some bear-related injuries in
Yosemite due to people storing their food in their tents, or where
someone (probably a child) went to bed with chocolate or some similar
food smeared on his or her face. That obviously complicates the
picture - what was the bear trying to get for food and did it attack
someone as prey, or due to being surprised, or because the person was
startled and seemed to be attacking the bear? Regardless, we don't
seem to be popular items on the black bears' menus - they seem to be
spending their time discovering how to break into various containers
rather than in trying to figure out how to catch us.

Some of it can be pretty comical. Tourists (mostly) would try to
scare bears away from the campgrounds by banging pots. My friends and
I would joke that the bears probably hear the pot banging and
interpret it as "food's ready; come and get it". After all, the
people who don't have any food with them typically don't have pots to
bang. After watching this many times, I can assure you that the pot
banging does not scare away the bears, who at worst (best?) just view
the campground as a noisy restaurant with relatively good service. :)

If you really want some amusement regarding MV, though, read his
strongly held opinion last year about how cell phone towers are
causing a massive reduction in the bee population (as he totally
ignores more likely causes such as a virus that seems to be related in
some way to the decline).



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 

Similar threads