Black bear attacks mountain biker in Washington State park



F

Floyd L. Davidson

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


Information correctly your false statements is relevant
to the thread.

It is true however that you post is not relevant
discussion.

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

You

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:

> 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).
>


did Mikey READ the latest on the Bee's Thing..... they HAVE isolated
a NEW, and as yet uncatagoized Virus that seems to have significant
infection rates in dead hives. It seems to have been imported from
China or Austrailia, about two years ago.......

Oh I suspect not.....Hmmm, oH well...... so much for MIkey's
Technology Understandings.....
 
B

Bill Z.

Guest
You <[email protected]> writes:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
>
> > 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).
> >

>
> did Mikey READ the latest on the Bee's Thing..... they HAVE isolated
> a NEW, and as yet uncatagoized Virus that seems to have significant
> infection rates in dead hives. It seems to have been imported from
> China or Austrailia, about two years ago.......
>
> Oh I suspect not.....Hmmm, oH well...... so much for MIkey's
> Technology Understandings.....


The article claimed it isn't airtight yet, although the virus seems
to be present in the dead hives. The problem is that the virus is
not killing hives in Australia. Possibly some other factor is
involved as well, but we don't yet understand why Australia is
different.

Just give the biologists some times. The most likely contribution
of cell phones will be when one biologist uses one to talk to
another.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
L

LIBERATOR

Guest
On Sep 6, 11:25 am, 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-b...
>
> Here's a known predatory attack:
>
> http://www.southeasternoutdoors.com/wildlife/mammals/smoky-mountain-f...
>
> "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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


ALL ******** IT WAS STAGED BY THE WITCHCRAFT DRIVEN GOVERNMENT!!

ROLE PLAYING THE PUBLIC is what this insanity was. All women who
practice witchcraft are SICK!!
 
R

Ryan Robbins

Guest
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> It's a well-known fact that black bears don't attack humans, except to
> defend their cubs.


Actually, make that "well-known myth."

http://www.bear.org/Black/Black_Bear_Facts.html

In June I was biking out in the woods here in Maine and waiting out some
rain under some trees when a momma bear and her cub came traipsing down a
trail not 25 feet from me. The mother bear stood on her hind legs and
snorted and blew as her cub ran into the brush. When I took my backpack off
and unzipped it to get my camera out, the mother ran into the brush as well.
The two stuck around for a few minutes. Nothing happened to me when I turned
the corner onto the intersecting trail. And I managed to get a decent photo
of the cub in a tree:
http://bangorinfo.com/cityforest/Photos/Wildlife/black-bear-cub.jpg

I met the same bear just the other night and she had no problem with me
watching from 200 feet away as she scaled a tree and ate acorns. I was the
one who ended up leaving first, after 20 minutes, because it was pitch dark.
 
R

Ryan Robbins

Guest
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> 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),


And according to a leading expert in the field, not true.
 
Your right, I needed fewer words to expose your ignorance. Simply put you
have
put forth an uneducated view of the world not based on any knowledge of
bears or
the bear/human conflict data, and I have represented the general consensus
of the
scientific community regarding predator/human encounters - you sure you do
not
work for the Bush administration - based on your blind incompetence I am
sure they
could find you a job.

Another possibility is the bear had just purchased an I-Phone at full price
and went
postal when he found out Apple just dropped the price a couple of hundred
bucks.

Keep up the posting Mike so we can be sure you have taken your meds.
 
M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 05:15:27 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>Your right, I needed fewer words to expose your ignorance. Simply put you
>have
>put forth an uneducated view of the world not based on any knowledge of
>bears or
>the bear/human conflict data, and I have represented the general consensus
>of the
>scientific community regarding predator/human encounters - you sure you do
>not
>work for the Bush administration - based on your blind incompetence I am
>sure they
>could find you a job.
>
>Another possibility is the bear had just purchased an I-Phone at full price
>and went
>postal when he found out Apple just dropped the price a couple of hundred
>bucks.
>
>Keep up the posting Mike so we can be sure you have taken your meds.


I notice that you carefully removed my indictment of your ignorance
about the scientific method, and changed the subject to "the general
consensus of the scientific community" -- whatever THAT is.

What are you afraid of? That someone might find out how little you
know?
--
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
 
You really do lack reading comprehension and your memory sucks. This entire
thread
started with you surmising incorrectly about why black bears attack people -
based
not on one shred of evidence to support your silly notions and a complete
and total
lack of the scientific lit on this subject. No you are sad and pathetic,
and mainly
delusional. Since it is you how has offered a viewpoint not
support by the evidence or literature and is inconsistent with the general
consensus,
I challenge you to come up with evidence that would require the scientific
community to change its mind - you may want to save your effort because you
have not credibility with scientists and you will fail miserably like you
always do.

Oh, if you do not understand consensus, talk to climate scientist to get a
refresher,
it is the very issue that has been driving the scientific bus that has
concluded that humans
are largely responsible for the current warming trend - but I guess you do
believe
global warming is a hoax also (also, the majority of our grasp of the
problem comes not from
experiments, but from observational data (such as ice cores).

Dude you need professional help.
 
M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 03:39:39 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>You really do lack reading comprehension and your memory sucks. This entire
>thread
>started with you surmising incorrectly about why black bears attack people -
>based
>not on one shred of evidence to support your silly notions and a complete
>and total
>lack of the scientific lit on this subject. No you are sad and pathetic,
>and mainly
>delusional. Since it is you how has offered a viewpoint not
>support by the evidence or literature and is inconsistent with the general
>consensus,
>I challenge you to come up with evidence that would require the scientific
>community to change its mind - you may want to save your effort because you
>have not credibility with scientists and you will fail miserably like you
>always do.
>
>Oh, if you do not understand consensus, talk to climate scientist to get a
>refresher,
>it is the very issue that has been driving the scientific bus that has
>concluded that humans
>are largely responsible for the current warming trend - but I guess you do
>believe
>global warming is a hoax also (also, the majority of our grasp of the
>problem comes not from
>experiments, but from observational data (such as ice cores).
>
>Dude you need professional help.


Very unprofessional of you: you aren't qualified to judge that, which
leads one to suspect that you aren't qualified for much of ANYTHING.

Your continued effort to change the subject is duly noted. For your
information, "consensus" of OPINION is irrelevant. The consensus is
often wrong. Remember, the consensus once was that the sun revolves
around the Earth.
--
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
 
On 9-Sep-2007, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:

> our continued effort to change the subject is duly noted. For your
> information, "consensus" of OPINION is irrelevant. The consensus is
> often wrong. Remember, the consensus once was that the sun revolves
> around the Earth.



Priceless, changing the subject is your most famous (and usually very
clumsy)
move.

tell climate scientist about consensus - you are stooopid.
 
C

Chris

Guest
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> 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.


Mike,
We finally have a subject where we agree. The bear should not be
killed.

But....... You were wrong in your statement "It's a well known
fact that black bears don't attack humans, except to defend their cubs."





--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
C

Chris

Guest
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 13 Sep 2007 15:02:04 GMT, Chris <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> 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.

>>
>>Mike,
>> We finally have a subject where we agree. The bear should not be
>>killed.

>
> Thanks. Did you do anything to prevent that?


I did exactly the same thing you did. Nothing! Nice job Mike.


>
>> But....... You were wrong in your statement "It's a well known
>>fact that black bears don't attack humans, except to defend their

cubs."
>
> Okay.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
On 13 Sep 2007 15:02:04 GMT, Chris <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> 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.

>
>Mike,
> We finally have a subject where we agree. The bear should not be
>killed.


Thanks. Did you do anything to prevent that?

> But....... You were wrong in your statement "It's a well known
>fact that black bears don't attack humans, except to defend their cubs."


Okay.
--
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
Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]t> wrote:
>>Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>Mike,
>>> We finally have a subject where we agree. The bear should not be
>>>killed.

>>
>> Thanks. Did you do anything to prevent that?

>
>I did exactly the same thing you did. Nothing! Nice job Mike.
>
>>
>>> But....... You were wrong in your statement "It's a well known
>>>fact that black bears don't attack humans, except to defend their

>cubs."
>>
>> Okay.


Unfortunately, you are both wrong. The bear should be
killed. That is an unfortunate tragedy, but life is not
necessarily nice.

Bears are not terribly bright compared to humans, they
do not often reason out what works and what
doesn't... they mostly learn by repetition and form
habits to go along with instinct. Instinct tells them
that humans are scary things that they should stay away
from. But it takes just about exactly 1 instance where
that is proven wrong for a bear to become habituated
towards attacking rather than fleeing from a human.

Whether it is the bear's fault that such a situation was
presented to it, is immaterial. Whether it is the
bear's fault that it is not smart enough to reason out
that one example is not proof that attacking humans is
safe, is immaterial.

The fact is that an *intelligent* human *can* reason out
the fact that the bear is now very likely to be a
significant danger to humans. The only safe action for
humans is to kill that particular bear.

(Soooo... we now can change the subject slightly, and
instead of discusing bears we can take an intelligence
test... 50-50 says no more than one of you passes...)

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

y_p_w

Guest
On Sep 14, 2:20 pm, [email protected] (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
> Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>Chris <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> >>>Mike,
> >>> We finally have a subject where we agree. The bear should not be
> >>>killed.

>
> >> Thanks. Did you do anything to prevent that?

>
> >I did exactly the same thing you did. Nothing! Nice job Mike.

>
> >>> But....... You were wrong in your statement "It's a well known
> >>>fact that black bears don't attack humans, except to defend their

> >cubs."

>
> >> Okay.

>
> Unfortunately, you are both wrong. The bear should be
> killed. That is an unfortunate tragedy, but life is not
> necessarily nice.
>
> Bears are not terribly bright compared to humans, they
> do not often reason out what works and what
> doesn't... they mostly learn by repetition and form
> habits to go along with instinct. Instinct tells them
> that humans are scary things that they should stay away
> from. But it takes just about exactly 1 instance where
> that is proven wrong for a bear to become habituated
> towards attacking rather than fleeing from a human.


Personally, I think they are intelligent as far as non-human animals
go. Many believe they can problem solve. I love the stories of
particular bears that learned to recognize a particular model of car,
and from that point became known as "Camaro Bear" or "VB Bug Bear" for
their practice and expertise, before meeting their demise.

> Whether it is the bear's fault that such a situation was
> presented to it, is immaterial. Whether it is the
> bear's fault that it is not smart enough to reason out
> that one example is not proof that attacking humans is
> safe, is immaterial.


I think the key is that bears don't really have a "moral compass" like
we'd hope humans would. A bear is looking after its own interests,
and frankly has no concept of "theft" or "injury".

> The fact is that an *intelligent* human *can* reason out
> the fact that the bear is now very likely to be a
> significant danger to humans. The only safe action for
> humans is to kill that particular bear.


That I agree with. Bears are wonderful creatures, but a bear that has
shown the propensity to injure people should be put down. It's
something I would have wished had never gotten to that point.
 
M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
On 14 Sep 2007 15:50:27 GMT, Chris <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 13 Sep 2007 15:02:04 GMT, Chris <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>Mike,
>>> We finally have a subject where we agree. The bear should not be
>>>killed.

>>
>> Thanks. Did you do anything to prevent that?

>
>I did exactly the same thing you did. Nothing! Nice job Mike.


Speak for yourself. I actually called the authorities and asked them
not to kill the bear. Can't you hypocrites EVER tell the truth?

>>> But....... You were wrong in your statement "It's a well known
>>>fact that black bears don't attack humans, except to defend their

>cubs."
>>
>> Okay.

--
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 Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:20:24 -0800, [email protected] (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

>Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Mike,
>>>> We finally have a subject where we agree. The bear should not be
>>>>killed.
>>>
>>> Thanks. Did you do anything to prevent that?

>>
>>I did exactly the same thing you did. Nothing! Nice job Mike.
>>
>>>
>>>> But....... You were wrong in your statement "It's a well known
>>>>fact that black bears don't attack humans, except to defend their

>>cubs."
>>>
>>> Okay.

>
>Unfortunately, you are both wrong. The bear should be
>killed. That is an unfortunate tragedy, but life is not
>necessarily nice.
>
>Bears are not terribly bright compared to humans, they
>do not often reason out what works and what
>doesn't... they mostly learn by repetition and form
>habits to go along with instinct. Instinct tells them
>that humans are scary things that they should stay away
>from.


Sounds like they are familiar with mountain bikers.

But it takes just about exactly 1 instance where
>that is proven wrong for a bear to become habituated
>towards attacking rather than fleeing from a human.
>
>Whether it is the bear's fault that such a situation was
>presented to it, is immaterial. Whether it is the
>bear's fault that it is not smart enough to reason out
>that one example is not proof that attacking humans is
>safe, is immaterial.
>
>The fact is that an *intelligent* human *can* reason out
>the fact that the bear is now very likely to be a
>significant danger to humans. The only safe action for
>humans is to kill that particular bear.


BS. If you are so smart, you should be able to figure out that ALL
bears are dangerous, and so you should stay out of their habitat. DUH!

>(Soooo... we now can change the subject slightly, and
>instead of discusing bears we can take an intelligence
>test... 50-50 says no more than one of you passes...)


Sounds like you just failed.
--
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 Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:31:52 -0700, y_p_w <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sep 14, 2:20 pm, [email protected] (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>> Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>Chris <[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>> >>>Mike,
>> >>> We finally have a subject where we agree. The bear should not be
>> >>>killed.

>>
>> >> Thanks. Did you do anything to prevent that?

>>
>> >I did exactly the same thing you did. Nothing! Nice job Mike.

>>
>> >>> But....... You were wrong in your statement "It's a well known
>> >>>fact that black bears don't attack humans, except to defend their
>> >cubs."

>>
>> >> Okay.

>>
>> Unfortunately, you are both wrong. The bear should be
>> killed. That is an unfortunate tragedy, but life is not
>> necessarily nice.
>>
>> Bears are not terribly bright compared to humans, they
>> do not often reason out what works and what
>> doesn't... they mostly learn by repetition and form
>> habits to go along with instinct. Instinct tells them
>> that humans are scary things that they should stay away
>> from. But it takes just about exactly 1 instance where
>> that is proven wrong for a bear to become habituated
>> towards attacking rather than fleeing from a human.

>
>Personally, I think they are intelligent as far as non-human animals
>go. Many believe they can problem solve. I love the stories of
>particular bears that learned to recognize a particular model of car,
>and from that point became known as "Camaro Bear" or "VB Bug Bear" for
>their practice and expertise, before meeting their demise.
>
>> Whether it is the bear's fault that such a situation was
>> presented to it, is immaterial. Whether it is the
>> bear's fault that it is not smart enough to reason out
>> that one example is not proof that attacking humans is
>> safe, is immaterial.

>
>I think the key is that bears don't really have a "moral compass" like
>we'd hope humans would. A bear is looking after its own interests,
>and frankly has no concept of "theft" or "injury".


Sounds just like a typical mountain biker. They were made for each
other!

>> The fact is that an *intelligent* human *can* reason out
>> the fact that the bear is now very likely to be a
>> significant danger to humans. The only safe action for
>> humans is to kill that particular bear.

>
>That I agree with. Bears are wonderful creatures, but a bear that has
>shown the propensity to injure people should be put down. It's
>something I would have wished had never gotten to that point.


The same goes for mountain bikers, who have shown a propensity for
irritating bears and other creatures.
--
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 14, 6:33 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:20:24 -0800, [email protected] (Floyd L.
> >The fact is that an *intelligent* human *can* reason out
> >the fact that the bear is now very likely to be a
> >significant danger to humans. The only safe action for
> >humans is to kill that particular bear.

>
> BS. If you are so smart, you should be able to figure out that ALL
> bears are dangerous, and so you should stay out of their habitat. DUH!


Sure. Why didn't we already think of that? I guess we should all
start by vacating all of Yosemite, Yellowstone. Move people out of
their rural homes in Idaho, the Sierras, the Cascades, etc. I'll
probably should never go to Lake Tahoe again, since "bears are
dangerous". I guess the American Indians had it all wrong not getting
the heck out of areas where bears lived, which includes the Berkeley
Hills (where I live) and even as far as San Francisco in the early
1900's.

Heck - several black bears came into Reno, Nevada on occasion and
started raiding trash cans. I guess that's their habitat now. Better
move people out.

Seriously though (for people who can reason better than Vandeman) -
bears aren't statistically dangerous. It's the rare case where bears
have the potential to cause harm to people. Black bears have
coexisted alongside people in North America for thousands of years,
and there's not going to be some massive die-off because an animal is
alongside a human presence. It's respect that should minimize
potential harm to humans and bears, and not a separation of the
habitats of humans and bears. Fact is - people are living and
visiting in areas where bears live, and nothing is going to change
that. Most of the time, it's not an issue. In the rare case where a
bear does show the propensity to injure a person, I have no problem if
it is put down. I respect bears, but I don't romanticize them as some
noble creature that must be preserved at all costs.
 

Similar threads