Death By Polar Bear

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"...adding the polar bear had been killed."

I always hate that part of these stories. Wtf. If the bear goes to, say, Brighton and munches people maybe. But these dumb twats went to where the bear lives. They set themselves up to be prey. Sorry to hear about their tragedy and all, but the bear shouldn't have been killed over their stupidity.

:This:

On the other hand it had got the taste for human flesh. Who knows what it might have got up to next?

They could feed Anders to him.

Robert Byers.

[laklak]

No polar bear would eat Byers after he scared them white.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No polar bear would eat Byers after he scared them white.

Or they died laughing.

[mistermack]

The other reason that the bear would be killed is that it was probably still eating it's victim.
Bears don't kill like cats, with a quick killing bite. If you are not lucky enough to be killed with a blow to the head, they will often just sit on you, pinning you down, and start eating you alive. Their prey eventually dies from loss of blood.

Some members of the group had access to rifles, so they probably shot it as it was eating it's victim.

[Clinton Huxley]

They should have shot the victim and let the bear crack on with it's lunch.

[Atheist-Lite]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14415592



"According to the doctor and the other people Patrick was trying to fend off the polar bear by hitting it on the nose - why, I don't know, but he did and... the polar bear attacked him with his right paw across his face and his head and his arm," he said.

(continued)

[Robert_S]

I blame Nissan

[Seth]

"...adding the polar bear had been killed."

I always hate that part of these stories. Wtf. If the bear goes to, say, Brighton and munches people maybe. But these dumb twats went to where the bear lives. They set themselves up to be prey. Sorry to hear about their tragedy and all, but the bear shouldn't have been killed over their stupidity.

Right. They should have been armed and killed the bear when it attacked. That's moral and justifiable...law of the jungle and all. Going out after the bear after the fact is not good sportsmanship.

Same thing with mountain lions around here (and bears too). I have no problem living harmoniously with them in OUR habitat, so long as I'm allowed to carry a gun to defend myself if they attack me. Fortunately, now I can lawfully carry a concealed handgun in our National Parks (in states where I'm allowed to do so otherwise) for self-defense.

Those who go out into the wilds without a firearm are what we in the hunting biz like to call "lunch."

[devogue]

Those who go out into the wilds without a firearm are what we in the hunting biz like to call "lunch."

Your sandwiches are unarmed???!!!

[Seth]

"...adding the polar bear had been killed."

I always hate that part of these stories. Wtf. If the bear goes to, say, Brighton and munches people maybe. But these dumb twats went to where the bear lives. They set themselves up to be prey. Sorry to hear about their tragedy and all, but the bear shouldn't have been killed over their stupidity.

:This:

On the other hand it had got the taste for human flesh. Who knows what it might have got up to next?

Has this ever been shown to be a valid characterisation?

It's more whether or not the animal has been "habituated" to human beings to the extent that they no longer fear them and begin to view them as potential food sources.

This happens with mountain lions in the wildland/urban interface. In the back woods of Colorado, it's incredibly rare and difficult to actually see, much less be attacked by a mountain lion because their feeding patterns have not been habituated to humans and they view humans as a threat, so they flee at the sight of a human. It's really hard to hunt them in the back country.

But, in the urban/wildland interface, some cats get habituated to humans and begin viewing them as prey, just as they begin viewing house pets as prey.

I have it from the Colorado Division of Wildlife biologists that mountain lions are constantly assessing the risks of getting hurt versus the opportunity for a meal when they observe or stalk any other living creature. What this means is that if you find yourself being stalked or observed at close range by a mountain lion, you are in grave danger because it's thinking about eating you.

My response to mountain lions is, therefore, if they are close enough to me for me to be able to shoot and kill them with a handgun, and they are not running away from me, I will shoot and kill them as quickly as I can, without hesitation, because I'm in danger. These cats can leap up to 40 feet horizontally and 20 feet vertically, so even if they are a hundred feet away, you are less than two second from being attacked, which is just enough time to draw, aim and fire.

Why anyone would wander around Svalbard without a rifle (which most residents carry for that precise reason) is a question that can only be answered by sheep-like stupidity on the part of tourists, who seem to think that because they are tourists, the laws of nature somehow cease to apply to them.

[Seth]

Those who go out into the wilds without a firearm are what we in the hunting biz like to call "lunch."

Your sandwiches are unarmed???!!!

No, even our sandwiches have more sense than tourists.

[MrJonno]

Those who go into the wilds and leave their car deserve anything they get

[Cunt]

mistermack, you are being a bit naive about bears there. I live in an area with ursus horribilus and my sweetheart has been in camp with a group who were attacked.
Your measures are not enough. The best way - the BEST way, is to have an experienced shooter with a gun and a mission. Bonus points if everyone can operate the gun safely.
Bear spray sounds good, but try it out. You will see that in a short time, the stuff will attract bears. (though at first it is fierce enough to deter them) Another problem with it is that it is not allowed for most air travel.
I have asked of the old folks around here, and I will quote a nice old lady named Gabby. She said "we always bring a shotgun into camp, and we have never had to use it yet."
I wanna be like her when I get old. To that end, I will take precautions such as you describe (and more!), but I will have that 12-guage (or the .338 WinMag) as back-up.

[MiM]

Why anyone would wander around Svalbard without a rifle (which most residents carry for that precise reason) is a question that can only be answered by sheep-like stupidity on the part of tourists, who seem to think that because they are tourists, the laws of nature somehow cease to apply to them.

Where in the news did you spot the information, that the group was unarmed? Afaik nobody leaves town in Svalbard unarmed or without having armed guards with them.

[Seth]

Why anyone would wander around Svalbard without a rifle (which most residents carry for that precise reason) is a question that can only be answered by sheep-like stupidity on the part of tourists, who seem to think that because they are tourists, the laws of nature somehow cease to apply to them.

Where in the news did you spot the information, that the group was unarmed? Afaik nobody leaves town in Svalbard unarmed or without having armed guards with them.

If their armed guard isn't up to killing a polar bear, they are effectively unarmed. And that's what I thought too. So, anybody know what became of their armed guard or arms?