Polar bear attacks tourists, one dead, four injured

  • Thread starter arildno
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Polar
In summary, a group of tourists were attacked by a polar bear near Longyear Town on Svalbard. It is advised to only venture into polar bear territory with knowledgeable local guides. The incident highlights the fact that polar bears are natural killing machines and necessary precautions should be taken. Some argue that a polar bear killing a human is acceptable, while the opposite is not due to the protection of endangered species. However, others believe that the blame lies with the individuals who enter the bear's territory. The attack was likely caused by a starving bear and in the past, bears have been known to avoid fires and lights. The bear was eventually killed, but some argue that humans are the real threat to polar bears.
  • #1
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
10,123
137
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/05/polar-bear-mauls-british-death

Close to Longyear Town on Svalbard, a group of tourists was attacked by an irate polar bear
Personally, I would never walk there on my own, but only accompanied by knowledgeable local guides who know the body language of these animals.
Just like I wouldn't venture close to rivers with crocodiles without such local expertise.

It is, of course, very sad for the families involved here, but people should actually learn that polar bears are natural killing machines, and take sufficient precautions.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
If a polar bears kills a human, it's okay. If it is a human killing a polar bear then it is bad because it is "killing endangered species"
 
  • #3
flyingpig said:
If a polar bears kills a human, it's okay. If it is a human killing a polar bear then it is bad because it is "killing endangered species"

A polar bear killing a human is OK to you?
 
  • #4
Some places have special tourist buses, but at a guess you probably have a better chance of getting hit by lightning or attacked by a shark.
 
  • #5
zomgwtf said:
A polar bear killing a human is OK to you?

arildno is correct - polar bears are killing machines. It's what they do for a living, and they're *very* good at it. Anyone who walks into their territory for any reason (like, to get a better photo, lol) is putting themselves at risk. If they get killed, it's certainly not the bear's fault.

Horrible for the families and survivors, though.
 
  • #6
lisab said:
arildno is correct - polar bears are killing machines. It's what they do for a living, and they're *very* good at it. Anyone who walks into their territory for any reason (like, to get a better photo, lol) is putting themselves at risk. If they get killed, it's certainly not the bear's fault.

Horrible for the families and survivors, though.

That doesn't make it ok, it just makes it the fault of the people who went there. Just because the polar bear is free of 'blame' (well should be) doesn't mean it's ok.

The difference between a polar bear and a human killing isn't that one is ok and the other isn't. It's that one doesn't have the capacity to understand enough to stop itself and the other does.
 
  • #8
zomgwtf said:
The difference between a polar bear and a human killing isn't that one is ok and the other isn't. It's that one doesn't have the capacity to understand enough to stop itself and the other does.

I don't think that's the difference. The difference is that to a polar bear, we're breakfast. If the polar bear had greater capacity for understanding it would just be more dangerous.

Since we're arguing semantics...
 
  • #9
Ivan Seeking said:
I don't think that's the difference. The difference is that to a polar bear, we're breakfast. If the polar bear had greater capacity for understanding it would just be more dangerous.

Since we're arguing semantics...

My father, who worked as a biologist at the university always maintained that crocodiles and serpents are EVIL.

I always interpreted the twinkle in his eye as evidence of passionate sincerity..
 
  • #10
People need to realize that camping or hiking in the woods puts you in the food category if predators live there. You can't fault the animal for being itself. You have chosen to enter their territory.
 
  • #12
Evo said:
People need to realize that camping or hiking in the woods puts you in the food category if predators live there. You can't fault the animal for being itself. You have chosen to enter their territory.

I've had bears [two occasions] sniff around my tent when we were camping out in the middle of nowhere. Being that close to nature really drives it home - I'm just an hors d'oeuvre! :cry:
 
  • #13
Ivan Seeking said:
I don't think that's the difference. The difference is that to a polar bear, we're breakfast. If the polar bear had greater capacity for understanding it would just be more dangerous.

Since we're arguing semantics...

First, it's not an argument of semantics. The person posted that it was OK for a bear to kill a person but not the other way around. I questioned this. No where did I argue for some other definition of any word...

Regardless your post is complete non-sense. Humans are not the typical part of a polar bears food chain, we are not 'breakfast'. If a polar bear had a greater capacity for understanding it'd be more dangerous to a seal, hardly so to humans... it'd recognize that we are far more dangerous to it.

The difference comes down to polar bears live based on instinct, little to no conscious effort put forward in a bears decisions. They are threatened they fight or flight, they need food they look for food, they need to pee they pee. They hardly have an option based on no understanding of the situation (ergo no morals) and can not decide, "well if I let them live they'll be on their way no longer a threat." or "Well if I kill them out of a hungry rage that's probably bad because they are self-conscious intelligent humans.. and they might come after me." Humans on the other hand can think about these things and do and should continue to.
 
  • #14
Arildno, there's a half naked woman taking a dump on a toilet on that page. :bugeye:
 
  • #15
zomgwtf said:
First, it's not an argument of semantics. The person posted that it was OK for a bear to kill a person but not the other way around. I questioned this. No where did I argue for some other definition of any word...

Do you really think he thinks it "okay" that someone's dead. :rolleyes:

Regardless your post is complete non-sense. Humans are not the typical part of a polar bears food chain, we are not 'breakfast'.

Since we are arguing semantics, :rofl: we ARE breakfast if it's hungry enough.


The difference comes down to polar bears live based on instinct, little to no conscious effort put forward in a bears decisions. They are threatened they fight or flight, they need food they look for food, they need to pee they pee. They hardly have an option based on no understanding of the situation (ergo no morals) and can not decide, "well if I let them live they'll be on their way no longer a threat." or "Well if I kill them out of a hungry rage that's probably bad because they are self-conscious intelligent humans.. and they might come after me." Humans on the other hand can think about these things and do and should continue to.

We aren't an endangered species. A thoughtful polar bear would seek to reduce the excess population. :biggrin:
 
  • #16
Evo said:
Arildno, there's a half naked woman taking a dump on a toilet on that page. :bugeye:

Half naked women ARE rather grotesque??
 
  • #17
get the bear a puppy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE-Nyt4Bmi8
 
  • #18
Lets see the governor issues a warning about disturbing polar bears.

And the feel good group, BSES Expeditions – formerly known as the British Schools Exploring Society, a youth development charity, in association with the Royal Geographical Society, sends 80 youths and addults into Norway to on a tour so as to introduce youngsters aged between 16 and 20 to "remote, wild environments to develop their confidence".

I wonder how confident they are now.

If anyone is to blame its the naive organizers for their stupidity of bringing individuals who would not know the danger they would be in. And also for the government for allowing such groups to operate in such a fashion.

The governor also reminded the public that seeking out and disturbing polar bears violated local regulations and was punishable by a fine or jail.

Now an individual is dead, the polar bear is dead, several are injured, and the rest most surely traumatized. Jail for the organizers and government officials who are through their negligence, are culpable in this situation.

I find this disgusting that such a crew would put anyone in harms way such as they did.
 
  • #19
arildno said:
Half naked women ARE rather grotesque??
Here in the US, a fully dressed woman would be lovingly smiling at a box and the air would be filled with flowers and butterflies.
 
  • #20
Evo said:
Here in the US, a fully dressed woman would be lovingly smiling at a box and the air would be filled with flowers and butterflies.

Also for a diarrhea remedy?
 
  • #21
arildno said:
Also for a diarrhea remedy?
Yep, happy stuff.
 
  • #22
Evo said:
Yep, happy stuff.

What a strange nation that associates butterflies with diarrhea..
 
  • #23
256bits said:
I find this disgusting that such a crew would put anyone in harms way such as they did.

I find it disgusting that people make this sort of inane comment without bothering to check the facts, but there you go.

Founded in 1932 by the late Surgeon Commander G Murray Levick, a member of Scott’s final Antarctic Expedition of 1910-13, BSES is one of the longest running organisations of its type.

They are used by top UK universities like Imperial College to organize scientific field trips for relevant courses. For example I know a Mech Eng undergrad who went on an IC/BSES trip to Nepal, to study the capability of the indigenous people's building structures to resist earthquakes. He learned quite a lot about practical dynamics testing, not to mention project management skills in negotiating with the "village elders" to get permission to stick accelerometers all over their houses before giving them a good shaking!

From interviews with members on other BSES expeditions on UK news today, the participants get a full training program (including weapons training) before they set out. We are not talking about a bunch of unprepared kiddies on holiday here.

BSES has taken down their website except for a front page right now - which is probably understandable, but a pity, since inanity tends to feed on ignorance.
http://www.bses.org.uk/
 
  • #24
Ivan Seeking said:
I've had bears [two occasions] sniff around my tent when we were camping out in the middle of nowhere. Being that close to nature really drives it home - I'm just an hor d'oeuvre! :cry:

Bears are omnivorous. They attack humans primarily when there is a lack of anything else to eat. Polar bears lack other things to eat because their environment is changing to the degree that their survival is affected.
DON'T have anything edible in your tent. That is what they are after, not you. (habituation- -association of campsites with food). If bears habitually hunted humans you'd be dead.
I worked in the bush for most of my adult life and the best chance to get pictures of black bears, grizzlies and eagles was the logging camp dump.
Cougars on the other hand... (are not omnivorous), they're just hungry.
mathal
 
  • #25
According to Norwegian newspapers, the camp was protected, according to the rules, with stumble wires.
These are designed to set off some high crack or flash to scare the bear off, or at least wake up the members of the camp in time.
Unfortunately, this defensive mechanism was flawed in some way, so that they didn't wake up before the bear was upon them.
 
  • #26
AlephZero said:
I find it disgusting that people make this sort of inane comment without bothering to check the facts, but there you go.



They are used by top UK universities like Imperial College to organize scientific field trips for relevant courses. For example I know a Mech Eng undergrad who went on an IC/BSES trip to Nepal, to study the capability of the indigenous people's building structures to resist earthquakes. He learned quite a lot about practical dynamics testing, not to mention project management skills in negotiating with the "village elders" to get permission to stick accelerometers all over their houses before giving them a good shaking!

From interviews with members on other BSES expeditions on UK news today, the participants get a full training program (including weapons training) before they set out. We are not talking about a bunch of unprepared kiddies on holiday here.

BSES has taken down their website except for a front page right now - which is probably understandable, but a pity, since inanity tends to feed on ignorance.
http://www.bses.org.uk/

Granted, i was off on a tangent there.

But what I am saying is that in this particlular case, especially with 2 polar bears being seen in close proximity, the trip should have been cancelled, or the camp removed to another location. That is where I stress that someone dropped the ball and I doubt if anyone will take responsibility. One can only conclude that the rules to follow in a situation encountered such as this were most likely vague or non-existant or not followed. Will that change so that if any family sends their child on a trip, they can be sure they will arrive back home safely.

By the way, inanity that tends to feed on ignorance is probably the reason this happened in the first place. You can chide all you want in any smug way possible. Surelythe family of the dead teenager will feel comforted.
 
  • #28
  • #30
lisab:
A bear intent upon feeding can hardly be regarded as criminally negligent of its own welfare.
 
  • #31
arildno said:
lisab:
A bear intent upon feeding can hardly be regarded as criminally negligent of its own welfare.

:wink:
 

1. How common are polar bear attacks on tourists?

Polar bear attacks on tourists are relatively rare, with only a few reported incidents each year. However, the frequency of attacks may vary depending on the location and time of year.

2. What are the reasons for polar bear attacks on tourists?

Polar bear attacks on tourists can occur due to a variety of reasons, including the bear feeling threatened or defending its territory, being attracted to food or garbage left by humans, or mistaking humans for prey.

3. How can tourists avoid polar bear attacks?

Tourists can avoid polar bear attacks by being aware of their surroundings and following safety protocols, such as traveling in groups, making noise to avoid surprising bears, and carrying bear deterrents like bear spray. It is also important to follow any guidelines or restrictions in place for visiting polar bear habitats.

4. What should be done in case of a polar bear attack?

In case of a polar bear attack, it is important to stay calm and try to slowly back away from the bear while facing it. If the bear continues to approach, use bear spray or any other deterrent if available. If the attack cannot be avoided, play dead by lying on your stomach with your hands clasped behind your neck and legs spread apart to protect your vital organs.

5. How can polar bear attacks on tourists be prevented?

Polar bear attacks on tourists can be prevented by properly managing human activities in polar bear habitats, such as limiting access to certain areas, enforcing proper waste disposal, and educating tourists on how to safely interact with polar bears. It is also important for tourists to follow safety guidelines and respect the natural behaviors of polar bears.

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top