On Jul 24, 9:03 am, "Jeff Strickland" <
[email protected]> wrote:
> First, the rangers (searchers of the missing woman) found the bear over a
> body. The way they recover a human from a bear is that they shoot the bear
> to protect the other humans from being attacked. People shoot bears.
Not decent ones (sorry, that's slightly churlish). I gather your
knowledge of bears is somewhat limited.
A 120-pound bear will sometimes protect a food source, but many will
be smart enough to recognize if they're outnumbered by humans and
retreat. OTOH, many people, especially law enforcement types, are
pretty trigger-happy and are liable to shoot *just because.* This is
a personal observation based on what I've seen here localy. This
article also does not say whether the bear was attempting to defend
its "food" so we cannot tell whether the shot was warranted. Finally,
small black bears - in fact, any bears apart from polar bears - rarely
attack humans as a food source.
I believe that more creative and less deadly options *may* have
existed. Of course, I was not there, and neither were you. Heck,
based on what you say below, the bear may have even willing to retreat
if they gave it more than a second of response time.
> Second, they do not know that the woman was going fast or slow. They did not
> describe the area other than to say she was riding a marked trail -- that
> appears by other parts of the story to be a ski run in winter.
That's nice.
> Third, the story does not suggest that the woman may have gone down, and the
> bear simply took advantage of the situation to have a meal.
It does not state it, but it implies that the *possibility exists*
with the following paragraphs:
"It's unclear if the bear, estimated to be about 54 kilograms (120
pounds), had in fact fatally attacked the woman.
"They don't know whether the bear was the cause or whether it was
just
there," said Mark Woodburn, vice-president of Panorama Mountain
Village. "
> Fourth, most animals will always go the other way in response to human
> visitation. Indeed, all animals know people are coming long before people
> know there are animals in the area.
Most, but not all, especially if they are familar with otherwise
harmless people. I have personally watched thousands of wild animals,
bears included, who have made little or no effort to stay at much more
than arms length. I have surprised a few, too, and after a brief
period of alertness, they may either retreat or go about their
business. It depends quite a bit on the the circumstances.
> Lastly, what conclusion did the reporter jump to?- Hide quoted text -
Sorry, I misread - Mike made that conclusion. Actually, the reporter
did a pretty good job reporting the facts, and not making assumptions.
The statistical probability remains that rapidly moving humans put
themselves at greater risk of animal attack than those who walk.
Runners and cyclists have been attacked far more than walkers by
predators, although not exclusively so. A cyclist moves faster than a
walker, and his/her legs will appear as though to run. Finally, the
bear may have been unfairly shot.
Bruce Jensen
