Stranger Among Bears: Feeding Wild Bears

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
27 replies · 6K views
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
2,666
This guy is CRAZY! He lives in close contact with wild bears - I mean he goes out in the yard and sits down with, feeds, and interacts with wild grizzly bears and black bears.
http://animal.discovery.com/videos/stranger-among-bears-videos/
 

Discussion

Biology news on Phys.org
Reminds me of the last bear nut job, the guy in alaska, his name escapes me at the moment.
 
Jeez! I'm watching one episode right now. At one point, a black bear standing upright [on two legs], walks up to Charley - the human - and takes a swipe at his shoulder with his claw. Charley reprimands the bear and smacks him a good one right upside the head! Cripes! These are wild bears.
 
For some reason, I can't help thinking of Astronuc on vacation when I see that. :rolleyes:

That dude should team up with Palin; he lures them in with food, and she shoots them.

It does remind me of my uncle John, in a way. He was a widower from Idaho who moved up here with his 6 kids and married my mother's sister. Mom and I lived with them until I was 2 1/2 years old, when my parents finally got married. He was one tough old bugger, about the same age as, and best friends with, my dad. That would make him around 110 now if he was still alive. He was both an auctioneer and a square-dance caller, as well as a farmer, so he had one hell of a set of lungs. One day, when he was in his late 70's, they were having a picnic out in one of his fields, and a black bear strolled right up to the table and decided to help himself. John jumped up, let out a bellow like a wounded bull, and landed a haymaker on the bear's jaw. The bear went whimpering back into the bushes. John sat back down and started eating again. My aunt asked him what the hell he was thinking of to do that. His reply, as he calmly continued his meal, was "There's no way that damned thing was getting into my fried chicken." :smile:
(True story.)
 
Last edited:
binzing said:
Reminds me of the last bear nut job, the guy in alaska, his name escapes me at the moment.

Are you thinking of this couple? http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/oct_2003/california.htm"

At least this one wore a suit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Grizzly" ). I really need to rent this one of these days.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
People who do this are -in my opinion- just plain stupid. Yes, they might be OK 99% of the time but eventually someone gets hurt; and then people will inevitable blame the "dangerous animal".
The problem is that many people who do this seem to be motivated by some strange urge to show that dangerous animals are just "misunderstood". Although that might be true to some extent (just think of the reputation of wolves; yes they are dangerous but not more so than many other animals) it is also true that animals -predators in particular- are neither good nor evil. There is no such thing as a "nice" grizzly (or nice wolf, tiger, lion etc); if you come between it and its cub it is likely to attack you regardless of any imagined "friendship".

It all boils down to the fact that we have to RESPECT animals; most of the time there is no reason to go around being afraid of bears, wolves etc but one should also realize that they ARE potentially dangerous. We also have to realize that under some circumstances a predator might look at us and think "lunch!", it doesn't mean that the animal is "evil", it just means that it -correctly- identifies us as another animal and a potential prey.

There was a case a few years ago when a couple of German tourists were eaten by lions when on safari in a national park in Africa. It turns out they had left their car in order to get a better look. I can't see why anyone would blame the lions...
 
f95toli said:
There was a case a few years ago when a couple of German tourists were eaten by lions when on safari in a national park in Africa. It turns out they had left their car in order to get a better look. I can't see why anyone would blame the lions...
This guy is not a tourist. Calling him stupid is clearly unfair. He said he's 70, his life is behind, and he knows all too well that it can end any time. The only real question is whether he causes those bears to me less afraid of humans in general and this is the only official problem authorities have with him.
 
humanino said:
This guy is not a tourist. Calling him stupid is clearly unfair. He said he's 70, his life is behind, and he knows all too well that it can end any time. The only real question is whether he causes those bears to me less afraid of humans in general and this is the only official problem authorities have with him.

And what happens if he is killed by one of the bears?
Most people will understand that he would only have himself to blame. But the problem is that an incident like that would also make many people even more afraid of bears; and those people would then be more likely to demand that any bear that comes close to humans are shot (or at least transported to another area).

I grew up in an area where the number of bears (standard size brown bears; not grizzlies)have been increasing of the past few decades. There is constant struggle between people like me who think this is a good thing but who ALSO realizes that this to some extent restricts when/how people can e.g. walk in a forest (not to mention hunt; a few hunting dogs are killed each year); and people who think nature should be "safe" and essentially advocates eradicating all dangerous animals (bears, wolves).
 
f95toli said:
people who think nature should be "safe" and essentially advocates eradicating all dangerous animals (bears, wolves).
Those people are a problem for Nature and our relationship with Her independently of bear huggers.
 
The guy's a nut. The real sad part is if one of those bears ever mauls him (which is inevitable, imo), it will be killed :cry:.
 
It endangers other people more than himself. I don't care if he dies but some other people might die because of him.
 
rootX said:
It endangers other people more than himself. I don't care if he dies but some other people might die because of him.

I think it puts the bears in more danger than he's putting other people.

The bears will probably feel less threatened by humans which will ultimately cause more bears to be killed.
 
Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
lisab said:
The guy's a nut. The real sad part is if one of those bears ever mauls him (which is inevitable, imo), it will be killed :cry:.
Why would anybody think it necessary to kill the bear ? The error is not on this (admittedly) nut guy, the error is on the individual killing the bear.
 
humanino said:
Why would anybody think it necessary to kill the bear ? The error is not on this (admittedly) nut guy, the error is on the individual killing the bear.

I agree, but it's standard procedure in every state I've ever lived to hunt down any bear that has attacked a human (actually, it's a policy not only for bears, but any animal...cougar, dog, etc.).

I always wondered how they were sure they got the right one :confused:.
 
lisab said:
I agree, but it's standard procedure in every state I've ever lived to hunt down any bear that has attacked a human (actually, it's a policy not only for bears, but any animal...cougar, dog, etc.).

I always wondered how they were sure they got the right one :confused:.

People feel that animals are subject to the same laws humans are... for some reason these darned animals don't know how to follow them.

Eg. In Russia one time a goat or something was sentenced 1 year in prison in Siberia.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=zsQ...q=goat sentenced 1 year prison russia&f=false

It's off topic but read some of the other cases. Like the statue that had been put on trial and sentenced. Hahaha oh boy.
 
Sorry! said:
I think it puts the bears in more danger than he's putting other people.

The bears will probably feel less threatened by humans which will ultimately cause more bears to be killed.

Bears who feel less threatened by people are less afraid to be around them, obviously. They become bolder around humans, pressing deeper into human habitations where, sooner or later, there's trouble. Bears and humans should be wary of each other; it's what keeps them separated.
 
humanino said:
Why would anybody think it necessary to kill the bear ? The error is not on this (admittedly) nut guy, the error is on the individual killing the bear.

I believe the thinking is that once a bear has attacked a human, it is far more likely than the average bear to do so again.

Note that he has been doing this for twenty years and has only received one bad bite to the hand. He seems to have a keen understanding of his limits and place among the pack. He uses only a stick for defense. Right or wrong, his ability to read and understand the bears is nothing less than remarkable.

In one scene, he goes for a walk in the woods with I think five [three to five] grizzly bears in tow. AMAZING!
 
Last edited:
Ivan Seeking said:
I believe the thinking is that once a bear has attacked a human, it is far more likely than the average bear to do so again.
Sure, but is there any evidence ? There is certainly evidence that if a human did kill another human, then that human is likely to do so again. But bears are not human. It is not obvious to me that they should even remember having attacked another human. We are not even talking about a bear attacking a random human, making it more likely that the given bear is somehow violent. We are talking about a random bear attacking a bear hugger. This is a highly biased statistical sample towards random bear rather than violent bears (assuming such a distinction exists).

I admit that I am playing the devil advocate here. This guy would be much better working say in a zoo where he could be in permanent contact with tamed bears. He should simply respect the law without further argument. But it must be recognized that the legal arguments are not scientific, they are based on a form of "precautionary principle".
 
I agree that it is probably just a precaution. Often, when a bear or large wild animal kills someone, the bear has become a problem for other reasons. This is what probably led to the practice.

I know that in Yosemite Nat, Park, every now and then a bear will become aggressive and start raiding the campsites. Normally they just capture the bear and haul it back into the mountains. But if it returns, it may be destroyed as they will never get rid of it.
 
humanino said:
Sure, but is there any evidence ? .

I think this is just a general rule that is applied to all animals; regardless if there is any evidence or not. There are certainly animals that are more likely to attack humans after "getting away with it " once. Á typical example is the tiger which -as far as I understand- generally prefers to avoid humans but can under certain circumstance start to consider humans as prey, usually after "accidently" attacking once. This is why tigers that have attacked humans are tracked down and killed as soon as possible in e.g. India.

The same rule also applies to dogs and other pets so it is in no way limited to wild animals.
 
f95toli said:
I think this is just a general rule that is applied to all animals; regardless if there is any evidence or not. There are certainly animals that are more likely to attack humans after "getting away with it " once. Á typical example is the tiger which -as far as I understand- generally prefers to avoid humans but can under certain circumstance start to consider humans as prey, usually after "accidently" attacking once. This is why tigers that have attacked humans are tracked down and killed as soon as possible in e.g. India.

The same rule also applies to dogs and other pets so it is in no way limited to wild animals.

So we kill them because they are intelligent... interesting. I think they kill it because they want some sort of revenge on the animal.

Normally after animal attacks they just capture the animal ALIVE and move it further from human contact. They sometimes do kill the animals because they are in the PROCESS of attacking a human as happened with a tiger that escaped a zoo in I believe L.A.
 
Sorry! said:
I think they kill it because they want some sort of revenge on the animal.
Smells unlikely to me. If I wanted to get revenge on a bear, I would not just kill it. I would eat it :-p
 
Sorry! said:
Normally after animal attacks they just capture the animal ALIVE and move it further from human contact.

That is impossible in most places. Most large predators regularly travel very long distances so unless one can transport the animal to e.g. the middle of Siberia there is virtually no place on the globe where you can guarantee it won't come into contact with humans. It is certainly not possible in a relatively crowded sub-continent as India.
This is also the reason why wolves that attack livestock are usually destroyed. There have been attempts to simply move them but they just come back.
 
f95toli said:
That is impossible in most places. Most large predators regularly travel very long distances so unless one can transport the animal to e.g. the middle of Siberia there is virtually no place on the globe where you can guarantee it won't come into contact with humans. It is certainly not possible in a relatively crowded sub-continent as India.
This is also the reason why wolves that attack livestock are usually destroyed. There have been attempts to simply move them but they just come back.

I guess that's true I was just thinking about here in North America. In India I have to say though, who cares if a tiger attacks livestock? Is it really worth killing of an entire species of animal?
 
humanino said:
Smells unlikely to me. If I wanted to get revenge on a bear, I would not just kill it. I would eat it :-p

You'd have to *really* want revenge badly, because I've heard they taste nasty.
 
lisab said:
You'd have to *really* want revenge badly, because I've heard they taste nasty.
Depends upon your taste. I don't care for it myself, because it's very greasy and has a 'gamier' taste than some other wild meats.
 

Similar threads

Man vs Wild: Bear Gylls in Copper Canyon, Mexico

  • Astronuc
  • · Replies 43 ·
  • Biology and Medical
2
Replies
43