What am I talking about? How come when humans wander in nature and enter the habitat's of wild animals (http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/08/05/norway.polar.bear.death/...) and a human casualty results - subsequently they kill the animal? It is like this with mountain lions, bears, etc. I don't understand - we wander in their turf, what do we expect? These things are going to happen from time to time.
There was one exception - recently in Yosemite there was an attack in which the bear was simply defending its cubs so they didn't kill the bear as the visitors seemed to encroach into the bear's territory - but I just don't understand why the first knee-jerk reaction is to kill the wild animal. I actually find it sad and abhorrent. I don't know...am I getting upset over nothing??
Your information is wrong Sassan. Again.
I agree with you on almost all points. However if the bear was enraged for some reason (or simply deranged) and killed in a blind rage, than the bear should be killed as it is a danger to all. I'm unaware of all of the facts regarding this specific incident, but wild animals are just that, wild, unpredictable and they should never be underestimated nor should you encroach upon their territory for any reason unless it is absolutely necessary.
but wild animals are just that, wild, unpredictable and they should never be underestimated
But we are worse. Humans are wild unpredictable animals with nuclear weapons and penis envy. Humph! *Mr bean eyes*
Actually in wilderness areas many times nothing is done. If the animal is in an area that is becoming populated then often times they will put it down. This happens to mountain lions a lot here recently. The problem with them is that once they figure out where and how easy it is to kill a human they will always be a future threat. The animals continue to lose habitat and encroachment by humans is creating more opportunities for confrontation.
I do know of one incident in Canada where a man was attacked by a grizzly and he specifically requested for wildlife officers to not hunt the bear down. They obliged. He took full responsibility for the mauling he received.
As he should.
But why put an wild animal down for the after-the-fact killings? Why not sedate them and move them to some really isolated area in some other part of the country in which they would not be a threat to humans? And I don't think saying the "cost" is a morally justifiable position to take since these are our fellow animals that we as humans have impeded upon their territory and have ruined their natural habitats (and continue to do so) with global warming, the spread of chemicals and toxins, and completely destroying wilderness areas for commercial benefit.
Because animals which have attacked humans will continue to attack humans as long as they can get away with it. Relocation generates a substantial amount of stress for the animal in addition to the threat of it returning to it's familiar hunting grounds.
Humans are quite defenseless in these areas and any fuckup usually results in death. Imagine how you would drive if you knew that an accident or engine failure would most likely result in hypothermia and death. Locking yourself out of the house might kill you. Falling into the ocean might kill you. Losing electricity might kill you. Overstepping while taking a walk - you guessed it - might kill you. You get the general idea. :)
Heh, my fb status after the attack (and the response of a Fin):
The rule for going out in the Svalbard wilderness is that you set up flashbang traps which usually scare off polar bears. If the polar bear ignores the flashbangs, then you are fire a warning shot. Once you can see the eyes of the bear you are allowed to put it down. Polar bears are wild animals and top predators in their habitats, and in addition there are lots of them.
PS: Of course I grew up in an igloo and polar bears roam the streets in my home town. ;)
Really? Where did you grow up? And I guess your hometown polar bars assimilated quite well, eh? Maybe they can teach European Muslims about assimilation?
Well, my home town was the whaling capital of the world, so we like big game. No large predators around, but lots of elks who like to charge at humans antlers first. As for assimilating muslims it usually works pretty well come 2nd or 3rd generation, though a worryingly large number join the Oslo gangs.
I generally think our new countrymen should be spared being chased out in what feels like near zero kelvin degree weather with packed lunch and skis on their feet. Here's a few accurate stereotypes.
(The polar bear and igloo statement was something I always liked to check if I could get away with in the US. Surprisingly often I could..)
No it's perfectly okay to get upset about this.
I don't know why it happens but it irritates the shit out of me. It's not the animals fault humans are stupid.
They were conducting primary scientific research in a very harsh environment. They have environmental concerrn at the top of their agenda.
Are they still stupid? Or did you comment ignorantly?
Based on the facts - in this particular case that I cited, it wasn't the park rangers or authorities that killed the bear after the fact (which happens very often) but it was one of the injured parties who shot the bear during the incident. Therefore - I can see how the killing was justified but i do still question why someone puts themselves at risk and the bear at risk in being in such remote wilderness terrain.
Saying this - my original premise stands. Even if it was not the case that one of the injured parties shot the bear - it may well have subsequently been the authorities after the fact which happens quite often and we watch and read this fact in the news. This sort of thing has been bothering me for a while - so this case the action seems to be justified.