Bear Attack

Have an interesting or epic climbing story? Post it here.
Forum rules
Please do not use this forum to advertise, sell photos or other products or promote a commercial website. For more details, please see the Terms of Use you agreed to when joining the forum.
User avatar
rpdawes
Posts: 424
Joined: 7/26/2013
14ers: 18 1
13ers: 30 2
Trip Reports (7)

Re: Bear Attack

Post by rpdawes »

CaptainSuburbia wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 5:20 pm Nonsense because I have a different opinion than you? Sorry she was protecting her cubs. I doubt her intentions were to kill. The chances of this bear becoming a serial killer was less than zero. Any mother bear would have done the same thing. What did the cubs do to deserve death?
Well, when did you suddenly become an experienced wildlife manager? Did you earn a degree in wildlife management? I am glad that you are not a wildlife manager who takes his/her job seriously.
User avatar
CaptainSuburbia
Posts: 666
Joined: 10/7/2017
14ers: 58 32
13ers: 107 18
Trip Reports (32)

Re: Bear Attack

Post by CaptainSuburbia »

rpdawes wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 6:23 pm
CaptainSuburbia wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 5:20 pm Nonsense because I have a different opinion than you? Sorry she was protecting her cubs. I doubt her intentions were to kill. The chances of this bear becoming a serial killer was less than zero. Any mother bear would have done the same thing. What did the cubs do to deserve death?
Well, when did you suddenly become an experienced wildlife manager? Did you earn a degree in wildlife management? I am glad that you are not a wildlife manager who takes his/her job seriously.
I'm not a wildlife manager. I have compassion though for defenseless animals that are needlessly killed, imo.
Some day our kids will study Clash lyrics in school.
User avatar
rpdawes
Posts: 424
Joined: 7/26/2013
14ers: 18 1
13ers: 30 2
Trip Reports (7)

Re: Bear Attack

Post by rpdawes »

CaptainSuburbia wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 6:29 pm
rpdawes wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 6:23 pm
CaptainSuburbia wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 5:20 pm Nonsense because I have a different opinion than you? Sorry she was protecting her cubs. I doubt her intentions were to kill. The chances of this bear becoming a serial killer was less than zero. Any mother bear would have done the same thing. What did the cubs do to deserve death?
Well, when did you suddenly become an experienced wildlife manager? Did you earn a degree in wildlife management? I am glad that you are not a wildlife manager who takes his/her job seriously.
I'm not a wildlife manager. I have compassion though for defenseless animals that are needlessly killed, imo.
Do you have any compassion for deer that are needlessly killed by bears? By your definition, deer are defenseless animals.
User avatar
CaptainSuburbia
Posts: 666
Joined: 10/7/2017
14ers: 58 32
13ers: 107 18
Trip Reports (32)

Re: Bear Attack

Post by CaptainSuburbia »

rpdawes wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 7:19 pm
CaptainSuburbia wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 6:29 pm
rpdawes wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 6:23 pm
Well, when did you suddenly become an experienced wildlife manager? Did you earn a degree in wildlife management? I am glad that you are not a wildlife manager who takes his/her job seriously.
I'm not a wildlife manager. I have compassion though for defenseless animals that are needlessly killed, imo.
Do you have any compassion for deer that are needlessly killed by bears? By your definition, deer are defenseless animals.
That's just silly. The bears were tranquilized.
Some day our kids will study Clash lyrics in school.
User avatar
prairiechicken
Posts: 41
Joined: 7/29/2018
14ers: List not added

Re: Bear Attack

Post by prairiechicken »

CaptainSuburbia wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 7:41 pm
rpdawes wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 7:19 pm
CaptainSuburbia wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 6:29 pm
I'm not a wildlife manager. I have compassion though for defenseless animals that are needlessly killed, imo.
Do you have any compassion for deer that are needlessly killed by bears? By your definition, deer are defenseless animals.
That's just silly. The bears were tranquilized.
You guys are both silly.
These bears were probably not about to go on a rampage and kill a bunch of people, though their chance of killing people again is higher than other bears.
From a conservation standpoint, though, it is better to kill the bears than run the risk of them killing someone again. Fatal bear attacks are bad for the continued coexistence of bears and humans. We have 20,000 bears in the state and can spare a few for increased social tolerance.
User avatar
mikefromcraig
Posts: 358
Joined: 11/11/2010
14ers: 53 24
13ers: 57
Trip Reports (14)

Re: Bear Attack

Post by mikefromcraig »

CaptainSuburbia wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 3:33 pm
teamdonkey wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 3:28 pm
CaptainSuburbia wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 3:12 pm How do you know they found human meat delicious? That bear was protecting its cubs and nothing more. I highly doubt these bears were going to go on a human eating rampage.
You think bears, whose sole purpose for the next several months is to eat as much as they possibly can, will ignore a new food source they just found? How many lives you willing to gamble on that?

Like rpdawes said, wildlife managers know what they're doing. And this seems like a no-brainer.
Sorry, I think the odds of those bears eating another human is the same as any other bear which is pretty close to zero. I'm willing to take that chance.
And I'd be fine with you taking that chance but the problem is that your position—which is incorrect—would be imposed on innocent humans. Out of curiosity, what is your acceptable exchange rate for bear lives v. human lives? Meaning, if you had to choose between the killing of ___ bears or 1 human, at what point would you decide that the human's life is more valuable? To make the thought experiment more advantageous to your position, assume we are killing bears who have not just eaten a human.
"I don't believe anyone who says they would prefer to die on a mountain in their 30s than in a hospital in their 90s."
User avatar
12ersRule
Posts: 1955
Joined: 6/18/2007
14ers: 58
13ers: 134
Trip Reports (4)

Re: Bear Attack

Post by 12ersRule »

mikefromcraig wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 7:48 am
CaptainSuburbia wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 3:33 pm
teamdonkey wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 3:28 pm

You think bears, whose sole purpose for the next several months is to eat as much as they possibly can, will ignore a new food source they just found? How many lives you willing to gamble on that?

Like rpdawes said, wildlife managers know what they're doing. And this seems like a no-brainer.
Sorry, I think the odds of those bears eating another human is the same as any other bear which is pretty close to zero. I'm willing to take that chance.
And I'd be fine with you taking that chance but the problem is that your position—which is incorrect—would be imposed on innocent humans. Out of curiosity, what is your acceptable exchange rate for bear lives v. human lives? Meaning, if you had to choose between the killing of ___ bears or 1 human, at what point would you decide that the human's life is more valuable? To make the thought experiment more advantageous to your position, assume we are killing bears who have not just eaten a human.
If you're gonna kill a bear, at least give him due process. They killed the bear and its offspring even before they gave it a fair trial.

For me, the bear's life is more valuable than the human's, though. There's a lot more humans that bears. I don't propose killing half of humanity like Thanos(ptsgffsfdf...) does, but I AM a capitalist and believe in the laws of Supply and Demand. There's a lot less bears than humans, therefore, they are more valuable.
User avatar
highpilgrim
Posts: 3123
Joined: 3/14/2008
14ers: 58
13ers: 82 1
Trip Reports (1)

Re: Bear Attack

Post by highpilgrim »

prairiechicken wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 8:53 pm You guys are both silly.
What is really silly, and unfortunate, is that thanks to incidents like this many people who are easily led by the sensational aspect of it will become convinced that black bears are as carnivorous as all the pit bulls, alligators, dingoes, mountain lions and bobcats out there stalking them on their hike. NOT!

Animals generally just want to be left alone, and will do most anything to avoid human contact.

I'm sorry the woman lost her life, that the bears DID need to be put down, and that so many people are now going to be heebiejeebing around in the woods convinced they are next on the menu.
Call on God, but row away from the rocks.
Hunter S Thompson

Walk away from the droning and leave the hive behind.
Dick Derkase
User avatar
mikefromcraig
Posts: 358
Joined: 11/11/2010
14ers: 53 24
13ers: 57
Trip Reports (14)

Re: Bear Attack

Post by mikefromcraig »

12ersRule wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 8:20 am
mikefromcraig wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 7:48 am
CaptainSuburbia wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 3:33 pm
Sorry, I think the odds of those bears eating another human is the same as any other bear which is pretty close to zero. I'm willing to take that chance.
And I'd be fine with you taking that chance but the problem is that your position—which is incorrect—would be imposed on innocent humans. Out of curiosity, what is your acceptable exchange rate for bear lives v. human lives? Meaning, if you had to choose between the killing of ___ bears or 1 human, at what point would you decide that the human's life is more valuable? To make the thought experiment more advantageous to your position, assume we are killing bears who have not just eaten a human.
If you're gonna kill a bear, at least give him due process. They killed the bear and its offspring even before they gave it a fair trial.

For me, the bear's life is more valuable than the human's, though. There's a lot more humans that bears. I don't propose killing half of humanity like Thanos(ptsgffsfdf...) does, but I AM a capitalist and believe in the laws of Supply and Demand. There's a lot less bears than humans, therefore, they are more valuable.
There's fewer male humans than female humans. So by your logic that means males are more valuable, right?
"I don't believe anyone who says they would prefer to die on a mountain in their 30s than in a hospital in their 90s."
User avatar
12ersRule
Posts: 1955
Joined: 6/18/2007
14ers: 58
13ers: 134
Trip Reports (4)

Re: Bear Attack

Post by 12ersRule »

mikefromcraig wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 8:39 am There's fewer male humans than female humans. So by your logic that means males are more valuable, right?
No because there are fewer females on mountaineering websites than males. Mountaineerers are the only people that matter.
User avatar
CaptainSuburbia
Posts: 666
Joined: 10/7/2017
14ers: 58 32
13ers: 107 18
Trip Reports (32)

Re: Bear Attack

Post by CaptainSuburbia »

mikefromcraig wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 7:48 am
CaptainSuburbia wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 3:33 pm
teamdonkey wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 3:28 pm

You think bears, whose sole purpose for the next several months is to eat as much as they possibly can, will ignore a new food source they just found? How many lives you willing to gamble on that?

Like rpdawes said, wildlife managers know what they're doing. And this seems like a no-brainer.
Sorry, I think the odds of those bears eating another human is the same as any other bear which is pretty close to zero. I'm willing to take that chance.
And I'd be fine with you taking that chance but the problem is that your position—which is incorrect—would be imposed on innocent humans. Out of curiosity, what is your acceptable exchange rate for bear lives v. human lives? Meaning, if you had to choose between the killing of ___ bears or 1 human, at what point would you decide that the human's life is more valuable? To make the thought experiment more advantageous to your position, assume we are killing bears who have not just eaten a human.
The current exchange rate of one human per year is acceptable to me. Had these 3 bears been allowed to live I do not believe the exchange rate would have increased.
Some day our kids will study Clash lyrics in school.
User avatar
mikefromcraig
Posts: 358
Joined: 11/11/2010
14ers: 53 24
13ers: 57
Trip Reports (14)

Re: Bear Attack

Post by mikefromcraig »

CaptainSuburbia wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 9:09 am The current exchange rate of one human per year is acceptable to me. Had these 3 bears been allowed to live I do not believe the exchange rate would have increased.
So one human per three bears then? While I certainly hope that most people place more value on human lives than you do, this is a matter of personal opinion so you are not "wrong."
"I don't believe anyone who says they would prefer to die on a mountain in their 30s than in a hospital in their 90s."
Post Reply