posted on August 19, 2002 05:41:53 PM new
Humans are food for wild animals. That animals are "afraid" of humans is BS. Given the opportunity they will kill and eat us. We didn't rid our lands of these animals out of cruelty, but because of the reason as seen in the article linked below.
posted on August 19, 2002 06:09:05 PM new
What a horrific tragedy!
Even though bears can weigh up to 400 pounds and run 35 miles an hour and are always looking for something to eat, it's amazing how many internet sites downplay their danger.
For example, from that site...In most cases, bears are not a threat, but they do deserve your respect and attention. When traveling in bear country, keep alert and enjoy the opportunity to see these magnificent animals in their natural habitat.
I have traveled in that area, called Bear Mountain. It's a very popular resort area north of New York City.
posted on August 19, 2002 06:12:28 PM new
>>Ward Stone, the state's chief pathologist, said it was the first time he could remember a black bear killing a human.
"In all my many years, 34 summers, we've had them eat birdseed, get into trouble eating dog food in people's yards but black bears are just not noted for attacking humans," Stone said.<<
An anomaly? What do you make of it? It implies there were adults on that porch. Were they encouraging its approach? Black bear attacks, while uncommon, do happen.
Then there's the who is encroaching on who question, like with the alligators in Florida.
P.S. "Seattle" told me the other day that his son and he went to a suburban Dairy Queen or some such in suburban NJ and discovered a black bear was rummaging out back in the trash. Everybody ran, including the bear.
Edited to add P.S.
[ edited by nycyn on Aug 19, 2002 06:16 PM ]
posted on August 19, 2002 06:16:38 PM new
I was flipping the channels the other day and here was a guy talking about how calm sharks are and he was actually petting one! I thought oh geez I hope there aren't any kids watching this who now won't be smart enough to get out of the water if they see a shark.
posted on August 19, 2002 07:12:14 PM new
Come on REAMOND. While this is certainly a tragedy, animals are not man eaters. I think most of these type of attacks are "human error".
Every animal alive spends its life looking for food. Bears are no different. Larger animals need larger amounts of food to stay alive. If none's available, what else are they supposed to do to feed themselves? Could any of this be our fault?
posted on August 19, 2002 07:16:37 PM new
People are so isolated from reality and indoctrinated by "Gentle Ben" type shows that one year when we were in Yellowstone on vacation a man tried to sit his young boy on the bears shoulders to take a picture - as if it were someones pet dog. The boy was not hurt but the man was. One may hope enough to learn something.
Part of being unable to admit they are a danger is that people would over react and shoot them on sight. Also people would tend to refuse to go unarmed. I will not hike unarmed in Grizzly country. I don't want to shoot one - but given the choice of being mauled or shooting - bye bye bear. I feel it is better to stay out of the Grizzly range and let them alone rather than put both it and you at risk of a confrontation. They are worth that small sacrifice.
I will not sleep in a national park with bear, because when I sleep out on the ground in bear country I have a short barreled shotgun full of Dynamite-Nobel 7/8 oz. slugs laying under my neck.
The bears were acting like the wild animals they are.
Great Smoky Mountains National Park shaken by first fatality due to bear attack
This is the story we never wanted to write, but unfortunately we have no choice. The inevitable has happened. We've had our first bear related death here in the Smokies, and we feel compelled to again remind everyone that BEARS are DANGEROUS and WILD ANIMALS. Even the small ones can kill a person given the right circumstances. It finally happened in the Smokies last week. Someone died as a result of an attack by two black bears.
We aren't bringing you this story to sensationalize it. We simply want to do everything we can to ensure that it never happens again.
The circumstances for this particular incident were a bit unusual. The bears were working as a team....a mother and a yearling. Now, before you go to thinking the woman killed came between a mama bear and her cub, you need to reread. It wasn't a cub. It was a yearling. Yearlings tend to become companions to their mothers, and aren't treated the same as cubs. Mamas don't feel as protective toward their yearling as they do their cubs. They were hunting for food when they stumbled upon the woman killed.
In truth, it's quite difficult to believe that we've been so fortunate as to not have had something like this happen before. The Great Smoky Mountains National Park is the most visited of the national parks in the country, having well over 10 MILLION visitors per year. W.C.Hiker and the staff of Smoky Mountains Magazine imagines that about 8 MILLION of those visitors don't have a clue about what these animals are capable of doing, juding by the humans' irresponsible behavior in regard to bears.
We realize that it is exciting for visitors to our area to actually get to encounter a bear in the wild. Living here in the Smokies, locals tend to take bear encounters for granted. In fact, we try to avoid them! Tourists (who often don't realize the danger they are putting themselves into) frequently do NOT try to avoid bears. It's occasionally their entire reason for visiting the Smokies...to see a bear. It isn't unusual to see tourists chasing bears and other wild creatures with their video cameras to get a good picture, sometimes completely surrounding the wild animal in their efforts, leaving no room for the animal's escape. We've seen and heard tell of people who allow their CHILDREN to feed the bears to get a good picture. People think of the bears as lumbersome, docile pets, but they aren't....in fact, they are quite different than the average "idiot bear chaser" foolishly thinks them to be.
We've had quite a bit of mail from people asking how bears that were so small could kill someone. The answer is: with ease. It's what they do...BEARS hunt to eat. A frightened woman who turns to run away isn't very much of a challenge to two bears with teeth and claws, regardless of size. NEVER EVER turn your back to run away from a bear. A human cannot outrun a black bear, as black bears have been known to sprint at speeds of over 50 miles per hour. They can climb trees with ease. In other words, you can't avoid them if they are intent upon catching you. Your only alternative to being attacked by the bear is to yell, throw things, and in general act aggressively FIRST in an effort to try to frighten the bears away. If it is a bear who is unfamiliar with humans, they might run away from the strange creature they see before them. If it is a bear that has been fed by humans, or a garbage bear, you're in trouble. They don't frighten easily. They think of humans as a source of food.
In this instance, we haven't heard whether the bears were garbage bears or simply a mama bear who had been orphaned early in life and hadn't developed the necessary skills to properly forrage for food. They were hungry, as evidenced by their very small size (as compared to their age). The mama was only 110 pounds, and the yearling was 40 pounds. Many of us have dogs larger than these animals. Our dogs don't have the same weapons that these bears have however, and we know of incidents where 80 pound dogs have been able to kill a 280 pound wild boar. Having those sharp teeth make a difference, and we want to let everyone know that bears have VERY sharp teeth and claws. It's how they defend themselves and how they feed themselves. These two were hungry.
The location of the attack was at the prong of Little River and Goshen Prong Trail near the place where we go to see the Synchronous Fireflies at Elkmont. This is a well traveled trail, easily accessible to those who want to enjoy the beauty of the Park. The attack happened in broad daylight, which indicates to some that the bears were possibly starving and desperate for food or they were "garbage eaters". It's difficult to tell at this point in the game. Hindsight isn't always 20/20.
The victim was 50 year old Glenda Bradley, who had recently been named Teacher of the Year for Jones Cove Elementary School. She was well loved by students and faculty and will be sorely missed. Bradley was carrying food in her daypack. It was stored properly in zip lock baggies and remained untouched by the bears. They didn't want her food. They wanted her. After the kill, several hikers who encountered the scene tried to "shoo" these bears away with no success. Once they've made a kill, bears aren't likely to leave their dinner until they are finished with it for the time being. All that would have happened would be that other people would have been injured by provoking the bears at that point. Sticks and stones aren't enough to encourage a bear to leave a meal. A park ranger killed both bears immediately upon his arrival.
We have had mail from people who were outraged that the bears were killed, as well as having mail from people who suggest that all bears be killed to ensure the safety of those who want to enjoy the park. We've had many people ask us what our position was concerning the bear kill incident. Here it is.
The bears were acting like the wild animals they are. The park is their protected home, and WE are the intruders when visiting the park. WE are the ones who need to learn to adapt to the surroundings, not the bears. When visiting a jungle, one expects to encounter wild animals and one expects that the animals are dangerous. Our long standing record of no deaths (inside the boundaries of the GSMNP) related to bears has made many of us somewhat sloppy in our dealings with the animals. Many visitors to the park treat the bears they encounter like cute pets, much like we might a squirrel or a bird, thinking them equally safe to interact with. We are wrong to do that. NO BEAR is safe to pet, hand feed, be photographed with, surround leaving no means for their escape...these are WILD ANIMALS and should be treated with the respect they deserve.
As for killing the bears, our opinion is that in this particular incident, the ranger who killed the two bears had no choice in the matter. The bears weren't going to give up their meal willingly or without a fight, and that's the long and short of it. People stood witness to a human being literally being mauled and eaten, helpless to save her. Like it or not, PEOPLE MUST COME BEFORE ANIMALS. Our view is that OF COURSE he should have killed these bears if for no reason than to retrieve the remains of the victim. (Our sources tell us Ms. Bradley was already deceased when this ranger arrived on the scene.)
There are other reasons to kill these particular bears though. It is thought by some that once a wild animal makes a human kill that they can't be rehabilitated to keep them from doing it again. We don't know anything about rehabilitating bears, cause the way we saw it, the bears were doing what came natural to them in the first place. We don't think they went out SEARCHING for a human...they just happened across one that they thought they could take.
This incident took place very near the Elkmont campground, which is some cause of concern. There are plenty of small children who could not effectively save themselves from this type of bear. We feel the ranger who killed the bears acted appropriately, and are thankful that he came upon the scene when he did. Those who think this is cruel, ask yourself...if that were your sister, wife, daughter, girl-friend, grandmother...would you want to leave her there for one second longer than you had to? Of course not!
The other thing we need to point out is that from all appearances, Ms. Bradley did very little wrong except to turn and flee from the bears. She had her food stored properly. She was on a well marked and well traveled trail in daylight hours. She wasn't far away from her hiking companion. She wasn't coaxing the bears to follow her with food. She wasn't acting irresponsibly in any way that we know of. She was still killed. It was an unfortunate and gruesome accident that happened, and one that no one could have foreseen given the circumstances. We all know bears live in the park. We just forgot how dangerous the park can be when we seperate for even a moment from our hiking companion.
We urge you to NEVER go hiking without a walking stick to defend yourself, and NEVER leave your hiking companion. As you can see, even those small bears are dangerous bears. If you are going to go into the park, or near the park, please take a moment to stop and read W.C.Hiker's Guide to Bear Encounters in the Smoky Mountains. It could save your life, or the life of someone you love.
Our sincere condolences go out to the family of 50 year old Glenda Bradley, the victim of this bear attack. Ms. Bradley had just been proclaimed TEACHER OF THE YEAR for Jones Cove Elementary School. She will be sorely missed.
posted on August 19, 2002 08:13:10 PM new
Wild Cats, bears, wolves and coyotes are all man eaters. Anyone who thinks they can be unarmed among them and not tempt fate is foolish. A human is no different than a sheep, deer or cow to these animals. People who think these animals won't kill and eat them generally end up dead or mauled. There was a female jogger in California who was not only killed by a wild cat, but over 50% percent of her was eaten by the cat before her body was found.
Eventhough we live in a "modern" world, we are just another food source for these animals, no different than when we lived in caves and hunted with sticks and stones.
posted on August 19, 2002 08:42:23 PM new
This is indeed a sad case. ..but it pales in comparison to what humans do to humans on an HOURLY basis....not to mention what their "pets" often do. Here's a little quote from
In the US dogs bite or attack some 4.5 million people each year, and kill about 20, health officials say. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that roughly 800,000 dog bites are serious enough each year to require stitches. Pit bulls and Rottweilers are living up to their dangerous reputations. A study released Friday shows those two breeds are responsible for more than half of the human deaths from dog attacks in the United States. By comparison, mountain lions mounted 37 attacks on hikers in the past TEN YEARS, according to researcher Thomas Jay Chester. SEVEN of those attacks were fatal, he said. There have been 45 fatal bear attacks in the whole of North America in the last 100 years, according to the University of Calgary in Canada. The WORLDWIDE annual average of shark attacks against humans during the 1990s was 54, according to the International Shark Attack File. Florida typically has the largest number of shark attack reports each year, but the state is also considered the "Gator Capital of the World." In the last 51 years, there were 248 confirmed alligator attacks in Florida, with 9 fatalities from those attacks, according to the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission
Let's take account of the number of fatal Pit Bull attacks in say the last 10 years, and compare it to wild animal fatalities. 20 deaths annually from DOGS! I say let's kill all the deranged slavering mutts! How could the brave pioneers have missed all those man eating DOGS while they were killing off all the lions, tigers and bears!
There are undoubtedly a few unprovoked wild animal attacks, but most you will find are due in some part to people being stupid in their approach to wild animals.
My family has coexisted here in the sticks with local fauna since before the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, that a wild animal would sooner eat me than run away is ludicrous...I have shouted bobcats away from chickens, coyotes and a mountain lion away from lambs numerous times. They were here first, and my family and I know that in order to prosper here WITH them, we must find ways to make some semblance of peace, as they are in large part why we remain....those who fear them should realize that their fear can be smelled, and stay home in town with their dogs...(heh, heh)
posted on August 19, 2002 10:31:04 PM new
What difference does it make why they eat humans ? Do you think it makes one bit of difference that they are hungry or have young or have been fed by humans when they sink their claws and teeth into your neck ?
If they use available humans as a food source, the reason why they do it is irrelevant, they are still man eaters.
posted on August 19, 2002 10:59:27 PM new
It makes a big difference why they attack humans. If we can learn why, then we know what to avoid and how to correct it. As far as I know we've learned quite a bit about why animals attack. We've been told repeatedly what to avoid as well. As gravid states, common sense is everything, so if people get attacked it's because they've probably slipped up.
posted on August 19, 2002 11:00:28 PM new
Reamond, you must have been killed by a wild animal in a past life. There isn't any other explaination for your apparent fear of wild critters.
Have you considered a past life regression?
WOW! That was some spelling error!
[ edited by rawbunzel on Aug 19, 2002 11:31 PM ]
posted on August 20, 2002 12:07:57 AM new
In the area where I grew up, the "wildest" animals I saw were deer. Now, foxes, bobcats and even cougar are not unusual. A jogger was mauled by a cougar near my home.
Wild animals are just that - wild! - and they must be respected. That includes the Yogi Bear stealing the campers' picnic baskets type bears.
posted on August 20, 2002 06:11:37 AM new
If they use available humans as a food source, the reason why they do it is irrelevant, they are still man eaters.
REAMOND, of course a wild animal will opportunistically take a human for food...but look at the numbers in the link I sent...you could hardly say that we are in any way a primary source of nutrition.....the arrogant human attitude that we humans are somehow not a part of the same food chain we feed from is part of what has gotten us into the environmental jam we're in right now...
MAN is the most efficient and bloodthirsty predator on this planet, not always killing for survival but also for territory, ideology and sport...you won't find any cougar dens with human heads hanging on the wall....
We eat them, they eat us, albeit much less often....seems more than fair to me.....
posted on August 20, 2002 07:27:28 AM new
I don't think there's cause to go into hysterics about the "bear problem". A 5 month old unattended doesn't mean bears are planning mass attacks against humans.
I wouldn't be surprised if this story changes.
There are bears all over NJ now and in 50 yrs a black bear "scratched" 1 kid. Of course his father was tossing the bear bagels to get a "really good" photo.
posted on August 20, 2002 08:06:05 AM new
The Washington Post had that story in their NATION IN BRIEF section this morning along with a story about a more violent animal attack. AND there are many of these around:
"We didn't rid our lands of these animals out of cruelty, but because of the reason as seen in the article linked below. "
Actually I think we rid our lands of animals and native inhabitants because of pure greed didn't we? We then altered history for our children in the way white men wanted.
White people didn't live on the land in harmony with it and the animals who lived there thousands of years before. We lived off the land, raping it as we went! He!! we still are! We move into places like the canyons in the west, everglades in Florida and the mountains everywhere and
expect the natives to behave, be it two footed or four footed.
Wondering:
If the child was taking a nap in the afternoon it could be possible they had just finished lunch. Food! Maybe the child had food on it's clothing or crumbs in the stroller. Maybe someone had just killed the bear's Mother, or taken its child. We will probably never know. Does the media
usually follow up on something like this, except in the area where it happened of course?
I don't believe certain animals are man-eaters, just MEAT-eaters. My cats would eat my body if I died and they couldn't get food. And, I wouldn't blame them.
posted on August 20, 2002 10:15:56 AM new
On the other hand I only learned this lesson a month or so ago, after I read about a woman who was mauled to death by a cougar on Van Couver island. FIND OUT WHAT DANGEROUS ANIMALS ARE INDIGENOUS TO WHERE I'M GOING. Apparently cougars are not uncommon there. Well I didn't know that when I was skipping around there with my basket. Then there's this gem, talk about God protecting dogs and drunks and me: When The Kid was two and we were in a cottage way out there in NE Scotland, just the two of us, when Mommy used to take him to visit that fenced bull across the road there... Bulls can be dangerous, ey? Gee. Close call, duh.
But then, would I ever have experienced the glory of swimming with sting-rays, barracuda, and other gloriously beautiful creatures, if I wsa petrified of jellyfish?
Last year, we went to Florida. Sharks everywhere. Never swam once. Never let the kid into more than 12" of water and never without me right there. What fun! And "jellyfish alerts", forget it, if one ever came within 20 feet of us I'll never know, but I was sure I was being stung by babies every two minutes. If we ever go back to FL just give me a pool--the hel with sunsets.
posted on August 20, 2002 10:48:36 AM new
I was being silly earlier, but maybe rawbunzel is on the right track. Were you or anyone you know attacked by a wild animal REAMOND? Could even be a phobia. (??)
posted on August 20, 2002 11:17:26 AM new
Never have been attacked, unless you included being bitten, gored and rammed, nor has anyone I know. But I have raised "domestic" farm animals and hunted and trapped in youth. I know what animals are capable of.
It doesn't matter what the people were doing or what "state of mind" the animals were in.
It will come to the point where you will not be able to allow your children outside if we continue to believe that there is some sort of safe manner in which to be in close proximity to wild animals without barriers or protection.
If we wish to convert the US into a wilderness area with bears and wild cats in the neighborhood, then we will have to begin carrying guns, just as we did when it was wild.
Those that think it is OK for a few people to be eaten or killed, should offer up their own children or loved ones for animal food.
Wild preditors are incompatible with people, unless one or the other is killed.
Comparing wild animal attacks to domestic dog attacks is specious. There are a million fold more domestic animals than wild preditors.
I'll make this prediction that will be in the news within 2 years: There will be one or more children mauled and/or killed by either wild wolves or coyotes while in their own backyard and in broad daylight.
posted on August 20, 2002 11:23:26 AM new
*I* wasn't being silly earlier!
It is inevitable that eventually:
a) there will be no more animals living naturally in the wild;
b) trees will only be in parks and developed land areas or on commerical logging property. The rest will be polluted deserts and ascidic industrial waste ponds;
c) in fact, OutDoors aka The Wilderness will reside only in books and extended parks;
d) the planet will loose it's abilty to filter and clean the air, so we will all have to wear breathing gear with our ChemSuits when we go outdoors.
Laugh if you will! This is the inevitability of Progress. Why fight it - go with the Flow!
posted on August 20, 2002 11:56:51 AM new
Wild animals are being displaced from their natural environment. Right now, I have deers and rabbits in my yard and some other animal that I haven't identified yet. (Something is eating tomatoes off the vines at night.)
When I see a bear among my backyard menagerie I will have to acquire a double barrelled shotgun like Gravid suggested.
Recently, the police had to go on a hunting trip in our local park which was so overrun with deer that they were threatening local drivers and causing automobile accidents.
I have a reasonable fear of bears and some dogs. It's not an irrational fear or phobia.
posted on August 20, 2002 12:11:31 PM new
Bor- I've heard those predictions before. I'll bet it doesn't happen.
Many made the same prediction about food and the environment in the 1960s, and still are. We have the ability to grow more than enough food. The mistke they always make is assuming that we will use the same means of production in the coming decades, when in reality we never have. Were we still using steam and horse power in agriculture, we would have severe starvation, and countries that do use these backwards methods are starving.
Genetic sciences will also erase many of the environmental and resource challenges we now face. We'll have benign bacteria that eats pollution and produces oxygen and hydrogen. Trees that took decades to grow, will grow in months. Food plants will be able to grow in nearly every climate year around. I can see few if any limits to custom genetics.
Populations will level off and begin decreasing as education and better and cheaper contraceptives become available.
Utopia ? Nope. Solutions always present there own set of problems, and humans always come with their own set of problems no matter what their environmental state. There are also political, cultural, and economic problems that science will not be able to cure. How fast can the human population digest and fairly distribute these coming changes without violence ? It may very well take a quasi world war to resolve the issues. But it won't be fought like the last one and will have far less death and destruction.
The question is no longer how we will adapt to the "natural" world, but how we will adapt to the coming "unnatural" world. But I suppose if we were to introduce a person from the 1800s to our world, he/she would determine that we've adapted quite well to what he/she would call a very unnatural but astonishing world.
I wish I were about 10 years old right now. Perhaps in another 20 years I can be if science is allowed to continue unabated.
