An Education on Bear Attacks!
Lone Haranguer
to
correct existing misinformation. The first point I have to deal with is
the
concept that people get attacked by bears because they are invading bear
habitat. This statement is actually an ethical statement based on the
principle that humans do not belong in nature and therefore deserve
whatever they get. But bears don't attack just people, they also attack
other bears and other animals. How about those other animals - are they
also second-class citizens, like us, with no rights? You and I have just
as
much right to go anywhere in B.C. as any bear. That doesn't mean we
have the right to not consider bears, or that it is not our
responsibility to
try to avoid bears, but bears do not have more rights than we do.
The next point I have to deal with is the following statement that has
been
in many bear safety pamphlets: "The majority of all bear attacks on
humans in North America have been by bears that have fed on garbage or
on other food sources such as orchards and compost heaps.
Garbage-conditioned bears are even more dangerous and unpredictable
than wild bears. They learn to associate humans with food and thus lose
their fear of humans."
There is an element of truth in this statement, but it is extremely
misleading and dangerous for British Columbians to believe. During the
'80s and early '90s there was a series of bear attacks in national parks
where people were injured or killed by food-conditioned grizzlies. And,
in
B.C. we had a series of attacks between 1987 and 1993 on tourists who
were feeding or photographing black bears along highways, mainly on the
Alaska highway. However, most of these highway bears weren't habituated
bears; they were bears that were experiencing their first contact with
people. Parks personnel have informed me that some of these attacking
bears were only on the highway one to three days before the attacks.
There most certainly are bear attacks in B.C. related to habituated
bears,
or to people doing stupid things with bears, but the vast majority of
bear
attacks in B.C. - about 75% - are attacks by wild bears. I have
interviewed
victims or investigated most of the serious bear attacks in B.C. that
took
place between 1980 and 1995, namely those involving people like Ray
Bartrum, Darwin Cary, Fred Kowark, Gordy Ray, Derrick Chapman, Mark
Hofer, Adam Kosowan, Daniel Marchuck, Doug Gibbs, Ian Dunbar, Wade
Sjodin, Louie Van Grootel, Bob Nichols, Shane Fumerton, Bill Caspell,
Ann
Quarterman, Christine Bialkoski, and Sevend Satre.
These people were seriously injured or killed by wild bears. This is not
a
complete list, just the ones I have investigated that involved wild
bears.
This list does not include the highway attacks, minor injury attacks,
firearms defence attacks, or spray defence attacks.
If one of your family members was just starting a field career in B.C.,
would
you want him or her to believe that a bear attack in the wild was a rare
event? Unfortunately, there is a sinister reason behind the continued
claim
that habituated bears are the most dangerous, and that is the
ideological
requirement to blame people for all human/bear conflict. One of the most
interesting things that came out of Stephen Herrero's research was that
habituated black bears are one of the least dangerous categories of
bears.
When I interviewed the C.O.s in Prince George, Tony Boschmann stated
that there had never been a Prince George citizen attacked by one of
their
habituated black bears. I have now interviewed six people living in
Prince
George who have been attacked elsewhere by wild bears. This
demonstrates how dangerous the information is in many bear safety
pamphlets.
I now want to tell you the fundamental underlying cause of bear attacks:
BEARS ATTACK OTHER BEARS, OTHER ANIMALS, AND PEOPLE BECAUSE
THEY HAVE GENETICALLY INHERITED TYPES OF AGGRESSIVE
BEHAVIOURS THAT PERTAIN TO POPULATION REGULATION, SURVIVAL
DEFENCE, AND PREDATORY AGGRESSION.
That doesn't mean that there aren't other factors involved in some
attacks,
or that people don't contribute to some attacks. It simply means that
bears
are not innocent bystanders during attacks, like many people claim.
The bear attack rate in B.C. has been slowly increasing for years and
has
taken a major jump since 1990. This is only partially shown in
government
statistics because - lucky for British Columbians - this increase has
been
largely offset by people going back to carrying firearms and, more
importantly, by the increasing use of sprays against bears. But the
government data doesn't include most firearms use or spray use against
bears. If sprays had not been developed, we would now be losing between
three and five people in B.C. per year to bears.
In 1995, two hunters were killed and six were mauled by grizzlies. Some
people claim that bear attacks are increasing because there are more
people going into the woods. But that argument doesn't hold water in
relation to hunters, because the number of hunters in B.C. has been
declining for about ten years. The number of attacks on hunters has to
do
with the significant reduction of grizzly mortality, and also because
grizzlies
have a very aggressive behaviour in taking carcasses away from other
animals. This is one of their most important adaptations. Bold
aggressive
day-active grizzlies are now surviving in larger numbers than before
because less of them are being killed by hunters.
The provincial government is proposing, as part of the Grizzly
Conservation
Strategy, to set aside large areas as grizzly sanctuaries. Every person
in
B.C. who values human life and our economy should do everything possible
to stop this ideological nonsense. It is totally unnecessary to add to
the
present over-protection of bears. We should be planning to protect
grizzlies
in all areas of the province based on conservation with hunting
mortality,
rather than preservation with no mortality of any kind allowed. Using
conservation, instead of preservation, will insure the long-term
survival of
bears and, at the same time, protects both people and our economy
(hunting and resource-extraction industries).
The following excerpt from a 1988 paper by Stephen Herrero shows how
firearms mortality in the past selected grizzly bears with less
aggression
towards people. It also shows how grizzlies have reverted to their
previous
more aggressive behaviours in newly protected populations and how
certain human activities have given grizzlies the opportunity to express
those behaviours.
"Grizzly bears probably did not include people in their normal 'prey
search
image', even before modern firearms were developed and even though
once dead a person would be high quality food.Why? One possible answer
is that most bears who hunted people were themselves killed by groups of
primitive human hunters. A bear might kill one person, but then die from
wounds inflicted by others of a hunting band. Man, the highly social
omnivorous predator, even before the advent of modern firearms, at least
reached a balance of power with the larger and stronger, yet less social
and less intelligent, grizzly bear.
However, although they apparently seldom preyed on people, grizzly bears
may have been generally more aggressive toward people before the
introduction of effective firearms. Some readers of Lewis and Clark's
journals have drawn this conclusion because of the number of charges and
attacks mentioned by them (Twaites 1959). This conclusion would be
consistent with McArthur-Jope's (1982) and Nadeau's (1987) findings in
Glacier Park, Montana. They showed that the more experience grizzly
bears
have with people, the less likely they are to confront or attack a
person
hiking.
Grizzlies encountered by Lewis and Clark's party would have been
relatively
inexperienced with people compared to grizzlies living today in Banff,
Glacier (Montana), or Yellowstone National Parks.
Since the introduction of modern firearms, very aggressive grizzly
bears, for
example those that might charge from several hundred metres, have been
eliminated. As soon as people had the power, 'selection' began against
bears that confronted or attacked people. Today most grizzly bears are
tolerant of people (Herrero 1985).
Until recently, in certain national parks, individual bears had little
opportunity to learn to exploit people or their foods. Those that did,
usually
died. Recently, however, with the creation of protected bear
populations,
the increase in camping and hiking as recreational pastimes, and the
greater availability of people's food or garbage, the contingencies
attached
to some actions toward people and their foods have changed. I suggest
that human actions have probably created new opportunities for the
expression of aggression by grizzly bears, as well as encouraged other
undesirable bear behaviour."
The reason that the government is pushing for sanctuaries is based on
two
fallacies: First, grizzlies are endangered in B.C.; second, grizzlies
will
disappear in Western Canada like they did in the Western U.S. I can show
you places in Bella Coola Valley where large dominant males bed down
during the day time within 150 yards of five houses. But the people
living
there never see them or know they are close by. There will still be
bears
doing the same thing 50 years from now. But only if the right level of
mortality is maintained - a level that does not eliminate grizzlies but
maintains their fear of people.
If we sit by and allow the government to create grizzly bear sanctuaries
for
the sole purpose of appeasing those international environmentalist
groups
who claim that British Columbians are mere custodians of B.C., we too
will
be responsible for the resulting increase in human/bear property
conflict,
the increase in human injury and deaths from bear attacks, and also for
a
further assault on our economy.
During the last ten years, our North American culture has been in a
phase
of frivolous environmentalism. We have gone to far in creating laws and
policies for protecting bears that are divorced from common sense. The
time has now come to recognize the dangers of preservationism, to
abandon it, and to enter a new era of modern conservationism that
balances the needs to protect people, our environment, and the economy.
I want to thank all of you for letting me speak here today.
Gary Shelton
Representative
B.C. Wildlife Federation
9/20/99
This guy sounds like he knows bears. Here is the URL.
http://www.direct.ca/cabc/8HbCo.html
LZ
Home
dtbla...@worldnet.att.net
> The first point I have to deal with is
> the
> concept that people get attacked by bears because they are invading bear
> habitat.
I really don't see the big deal. I thought it was common
knowledge how to prevent bear attacks. From what I've been
told, if humans make their presence known while in the
forest, that is they don't inadvertently surprise the
bears, then the bears will stay clear. Experienced hikers
have learned to tie small bells onto their shoes, so that
they are making an audible presence whenever penetrating
known bear country.
This has proven to work very well with the black bears,
though it is somewhat less effective with the grizzlies.
An observant hiker can tell if he/she is in grizzly
territory. The bear droppings will have little bells in
them.
--
==============================================
Dale
*****To reply, delete && from displayed email
address.*****
DsrtTravlr
1. Hit the ground
2. Roll into the fetal position
3. Pull in your arms and legs
4. Put your head as far between your legs as you can
5. Kiss your ass goodbye
HTH
Steve
~ Illegitimi Non Carborundum ~
al...@nospam.net
>Lone Haranguer wrote:
>> The first point I have to deal with is
>> the
>> concept that people get attacked by bears because they are invading bear
>> habitat.
>
>I really don't see the big deal. I thought it was common
>knowledge how to prevent bear attacks. From what I've been
>told, if humans make their presence known while in the
>forest, that is they don't inadvertently surprise the
>bears, then the bears will stay clear. Experienced hikers
>have learned to tie small bells onto their shoes, so that
>they are making an audible presence whenever penetrating
>known bear country.
>
>This has proven to work very well with the black bears,
>though it is somewhat less effective with the grizzlies.
>An observant hiker can tell if he/she is in grizzly
>territory. The bear droppings will have little bells in
>them.
We camp and ride in bear country. Mostly black, but we have seen one
grizzly. They are all doing one thing when we see them. Running away
from us. Why? Because we ride motorcycles and ATVs, and they make
noise. Bears don't seem to like noise, and leave immediately. And, we
have never seen bear scat with bike parts in it.
Tom
DsrtTravlr
>My son's girl friend was bitten by a bear while camping in Alaska. It
>attacked her through the side of her tent. She played dead for a
>while, but when the beat chomped on her leg she screamed, and the bear
>left immediately.
>
>Canoli
When my GF screams when I bite her leg, it makes me let go for a while, too.
;-)
(Good thing the neighbors are used to it, and quit calling 911.)
midwesterner
she works for a local radio station. After the attack she was on the
radio talking about her ordeal. The bear pulled her sleeping bag out
of the tent with her in it. She has a good sense of humor and said
there were no shortage of first aid kits. Within a couple of days, she
said the kids were getting kind of jealous of the attention she was
getting and were wishing they had been bitten.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/den/news/stories/news-88994220010725-190738.html
What is wild is that the same thing happen in the same tent about a
week later:
http://www.animalhelp.com/hometown/newsdetail.cfm?newsid=335
dsrtt...@aol.comNojuNk (DsrtTravlr) wrote in message news:<20011105220531...@mb-dh.aol.com>...
Mark
>grizzly. They are all doing one thing when we see them. Running away
>from us. Why? Because we ride motorcycles and ATVs, and they make
>noise. Bears don't seem to like noise, and leave immediately. And, we
>have never seen bear scat with bike parts in it.
>Tom
Well, you don't eat the can that the Dinty Moore comes in, do you? Stands to
reason that the bears wouldn't eat the bike, car, RV or whatever the people
come in....
Mark - no Dinty Moore can droppings in my black tank...
al...@nospam.net
And I thought I was safe! Crap. 'Course, I don't usually come in my
bike, I ride it.
Tom