Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Polar bear attacks tourists, one dead, four injured

  1. Aug 5, 2011 #1

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 5, 2011 #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"
     
  4. Aug 5, 2011 #3
    A polar bear killing a human is OK to you?
     
  5. Aug 5, 2011 #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.
     
  6. Aug 5, 2011 #5

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  7. Aug 5, 2011 #6
    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. Aug 5, 2011 #7

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

  9. Aug 5, 2011 #8

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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...
     
  10. Aug 5, 2011 #9

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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..
     
  11. Aug 5, 2011 #10

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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. Aug 5, 2011 #11

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

  13. Aug 5, 2011 #12

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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:
     
  14. Aug 5, 2011 #13
    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.
     
  15. Aug 5, 2011 #14

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Arildno, there's a half naked woman taking a dump on a toilet on that page. :bugeye:
     
  16. Aug 5, 2011 #15

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

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

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


    We aren't an endangered species. A thoughtful polar bear would seek to reduce the excess population. :biggrin:
     
  17. Aug 5, 2011 #16

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Half naked women ARE rather grotesque??
     
  18. Aug 5, 2011 #17
    get the bear a puppy

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE-Nyt4Bmi8
     
  19. Aug 5, 2011 #18

    256bits

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  20. Aug 5, 2011 #19

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  21. Aug 5, 2011 #20

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Also for a diarrhea remedy???
     
  22. Aug 5, 2011 #21

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Yep, happy stuff.
     
  23. Aug 5, 2011 #22

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    What a strange nation that associates butterflies with diarrhea..
     
  24. Aug 5, 2011 #23

    AlephZero

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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/
     
  25. Aug 6, 2011 #24
    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
     
  26. Aug 6, 2011 #25

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook