Polar bear kills young British adventurer in Norway.

Run_to_da_hills

"A British adventurer has been killed by a polar bear that attacked an expedition organised by the British Schools Exploring Society.

Four other people were injured by the animal, which the group then shot dead, at the Von Postbreen glacier on the island of Spitsbergen, part of the Svalbard archipelago.

The party of around 80 were on a five-week expedition in the Arctic run by the BSES, a youth development charity."

What kind of irresponsible idiots were running this expedition?

Polar Bears are perhaps the most deadliest of all mammals on the face of the planet and will think nothing of attacking and tearing a person apart if hungry or if their cubs or territory are in any threatened.

Teddy bears must have given these people the false pretence that they were dealing with cuddly creatures when in fact in reality they were confronting one of the most deadliest mammals on earth.

In the light of all this teddy bears should now be banned or at least come with a government warning stating that real bears are deadly.

RIP to the victim in this case.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2022778/Polar-bear-mauls-death-British-tourist-Norway.html

Sonics2k

Is the bear okay?

edit:
They killed the bear?
Bastards get no sympathy from me.

W.Shakes-Beer

Read this earlier.

Cruel fúckers for killing the bear. They were after all rambling into the bear's environment.

DrumSteve

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

"A British adventurer has been killed by a polar bear that attacked an expedition organised by the British Schools Exploring Society.

Four other people were injured by the animal, which the group then shot dead, at the Von Postbreen glacier on the island of Spitsbergen, part of the Svalbard archipelago.

The party of around 80 were on a five-week expedition in the Arctic run by the BSES, a youth development charity."

What kind of irresponsible idiots were running this expedition?

Polar Bears are perhaps the most deadliest of all mammals on the face of the planet and will think nothing of attacking and tearing a person apart if hungry or if their cubs or territory are in any threatened.

Teddy bears must have given these people the false pretence that they were dealing with cuddly creatures when in fact in reality they were confronting one of the most deadliest mammals on earth.

In the light of all this teddy bears should now be banned or at least come with a government warning stating that real bears are deadly.

RIP to the victim in this case.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2022778/Polar-bear-mauls-death-British-tourist-Norway.html

Yes. They are a threat to society as we know it.

flas

dont think they were right to kill the bear, it was its environment and terroritery and was doing what was natural to it

FetchTheGin

It's like a friggin bear jamberoo around here.

Tabnabs

Proper Planning and Preparation Prevents Piss Poor Performance

No detection system as recommended by the locals

http://kho.unis.no/doc/Polar_bears_Svalbard.pdf

RIP to the victim, what a way to go.

mackg

It's not the bears it's the immigants

hooradiation

More proof that bears are soulless, godless, rampaging killing machines.

seamus

Poor bear, just looking for a bit of dinner

Stinicker

Anders Bearvik strikes again!

Sofa King Great

I know they were on the bear's patch and all that but what do people expect them to have done once the bear began attacking them? They had to kill it!

If a bear was after tearing my mate apart and was about to turn to me I wouldn't think twice about turning it into an ornament

Daemos

Bloody Norway

Angeles

Whats with all the bear sympathy? I know its a beautiful and endangered animal and all but if it killed a friend of mine and/or came at me? The last thing on my mind while holding a gun aimed at it would be, awe but its cute and endangered!

CorkMan

Rightfully so they killed the bear. Are people saying it is OK for something to kill a human-being and get away with it?

If an animal in Ireland (mostly dogs and cats) bit or clawed a person more often than not it would get put down, need I say the penalty for killing a human. Plus there was also the fact that at that second the Bear killed injured 5 others.

seamus

CorkMan wrote: »

Rightfully so they killed the bear. Are people saying it is OK for something to kill a human-being and get away with it?

Uh...yes? Otherwise all you're doing is getting revenge against a creature which is incapable of understanding the concept.

You're projecting human morality onto animals. I don't need to explain to you how utterly pointless and barbaric that is. Do you think that other polar bears will see what happened and be afraid? Do you think any purpose is served by killing an animal just because it's killed someone?

Should we put them on trial too?

Self-defence, I don't have a problem with. But clearly the idiots in charge of this expedition didn't take the necessary precautions in regards to detection and protection against polar bears. And now one guy is dead, 4 of his friends injured and one endangered animal destroyed.

All because someone morons didn't plan correctly. An animal just does what it does. It can't be held accountable for its actions.

prinz

[Run_to_da_Hills]Obviously a false flag operation, say goodbye to any civil liberties you have left, all the prints of Mossad...[/Run_to_da_Hills]

stephen_k

Shoulda brought a pic-a-nic basket....

mattjack

flas wrote: »

dont think they were right to kill the bear, it was its environment and terroritery and was doing what was natural to it

the bear opened fire first...

It wasn't me!

Sytems fail even if they had taken adequate precautions. That's why firearms are necessary around dangerous animals. Some precautions were taken in terms of deterrent flares, but that, a system, failed, which is why there's a lethal option. Christ, if there were any opportunity, it should have been shot before it killed someone. After it killed a person, and the argument is that they shouldn't have been there? I'm going to wander where I want on this planet, and if I find myself in a situation where I have to kill dangerous animals to get home, I'm going to kill them, pretty, endangered, or no.

sunssocks

would be left because this HUUUge g lobal w arming ...that all bears are drowned and starved because they choose not to hunt on land

Wertz

I believe the argument for killing a wild animal after a fatal attack on a human is that that animal has then proven itself as a "maneater" that has the taste for human blood (does it taste different) and has proven itself as a danger to other humans...but in somewhere like svalbaard, how many humans are wandering around the ice-sheet at any one time?
If this group and their minders were properly trained and had decent guides this should never have happened...few warning shots from a rifle or hit with a tranq dart and get the group moving.
Are dangerous environments like this an apt place for novice explorers on a school/college trip?

It wasn't me!

Wertz wrote: »

I believe the argument for killing a wild animal after a fatal attack on a human is that that animal has then proven itself as a "maneater" that has the taste for human blood (does it taste different) and has proven itself as a danger to other humans...but in somewhere like svalbaard, how many humans are wandering around the ice-sheet at any one time?
If this group and their minders were properly trained and had decent guides this should never have happened...few warning shots from a rifle or hit with a tranq dart and get the group moving.
Are dangerous environments like this an apt place for novice explorers on a school/college trip?

No, it's that the animal is still there, still posing a threat. You don't fire warning shots. There's no such thing. They won't deter animals and they're a waste of ammo you might need. Tranquilisers? They take a long time to work, while the animal is meanwhile confused and enraged.

CorkMan

Sonics2k wrote: »

Is the bear okay?

edit:
They killed the bear?
Bastards get no sympathy from me.

What if you lived in Montana in the states, and you look out your back window and see a bear in your back yard. Do you ring the Gardaí and wait 20 minutes for them to call round or do you arm yourself with a rifle?

It's people like you who are glad scumbags get off scot free are kicking 10 different colours of **** out of an innocent person.

seamus

Wertz wrote: »

I believe the argument for killing a wild animal after a fatal attack on a human is that that animal has then proven itself as a "maneater" that has the taste for human blood (does it taste different) and has proven itself as a danger to other humans...but in somewhere like svalbaard, how many humans are wandering around the ice-sheet at any one time?

All large carnivores are maneaters. It's a myth about "taste for human blood", it all pretty much tastes the same.

Polar bears are notoriously dangerous because food is hard to come by when they live in such isolation. They've evolved massive strength and bulk so that they can attack and kill pretty much any living thing they encounter because they need to do so in order to survive.

This is why anyone going exploring that far North needs to be ultra-prepared.

Run_to_da_hills

Stinicker wrote: »

Anders Bearvik strikes again!

They should send him up to this place and make him play with the bears.

MungBean

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Teddy bears must have given these people the false pretence that they were dealing with cuddly creatures when in fact in reality they were confronting one of the most deadliest mammals on earth.

In the light of all this teddy bears should now be banned or at least come with a government warning stating that real bears are deadly.

The starving animal attacked the group of 13 young explorers at 7.30am today as they were sleeping on the Norwegian island of Svalbard on a dream wildlife trip.

Because if they knew they were dangerous they wouldnt have been sleeping at 7.30am ? They didnt walk up to play with the fukin thing it tore through the tent while they were asleep.

And I agree if the the bear is still a threat you kill it. I dont like seeing animals getting killed when they are just doing what they do and looking for a bit of grub but after killin one kid you dont try shoo it away, you put a bullet in its head.

Mr. Denton

The Bearfaced cheek of it all!

CorkMan

seamus wrote: »

Uh...yes? Otherwise all you're doing is getting revenge against a creature which is incapable of understanding the concept.

You're projecting human morality onto animals. I don't need to explain to you how utterly pointless and barbaric that is. Do you think that other polar bears will see what happened and be afraid? Do you think any purpose is served by killing an animal just because it's killed someone?

Should we put them on trial too?

Self-defence, I don't have a problem with. But clearly the idiots in charge of this expedition didn't take the necessary precautions in regards to detection and protection against polar bears. And now one guy is dead, 4 of his friends injured and one endangered animal destroyed.

All because someone morons didn't plan correctly. An animal just does what it does. It can't be held accountable for its actions.

All I know is that the Polar Bear killed 1 Human and injured 5 others. The bear more than likely chased them down and then attacked. Just because he "didn't have morality" about what happened doesn't mean it is alright for it to happen. The man who killed the bear won't be charged and rightfully so. He will get a nice medal that he will wear on his top.

And yes I do think the polar bears would be afraid if they saw fellow Polar Bears being slain at ease, they would hesitate to go near humans in the future, regardless of whether a human has a gun or not. (Though I am not advocating Polar Bear hunting.) As for being putting bears on trial, large segments of the human world don't have trials for their human population so why an animal? (Plus who would bear the blunt of the costs of charging the said bear 0_o)

Wertz

Fair point on the polar bear's lack of available prey. Not really the same as a big cat or a land based bear that shares some of it's environment with us and has other feeding opportunities. I know the taste of human blood thing is rubbish...but the fear an animal, that lives in proximity to us, should have of attacking a human is lessened when it has gotten away with it, thus one that has a proven track record for attacking/killing has to be prevented from doing so again...that probably doesn't apply to the polar bear in this case. Any attack is instinctual...but any action by humans to deter such an attack is just as instinctual...

beks101

seamus wrote: »

Uh...yes? Otherwise all you're doing is getting revenge against a creature which is incapable of understanding the concept.

You're projecting human morality onto animals. I don't need to explain to you how utterly pointless and barbaric that is. Do you think that other polar bears will see what happened and be afraid? Do you think any purpose is served by killing an animal just because it's killed someone?

Should we put them on trial too?

I don't think they shot the bear to 'teach it a lesson' in fairness...regardless of how retarded the expedition organisers were, here you had a camp of teenagers, one dead and four seriously injured versus a 1,000 lb vicious predator and one of nature's most dangerous on a feeding rampage, I think morality was fairly low down on the list of priorities.

Seriously not getting how people think there was any other option but to shoot the animal? Seriously??

Sonics2k

CorkMan wrote: »

What if you lived in Montana in the states, and you look out your back window and see a bear in your back yard. Do you ring the Gardaí and wait 20 minutes for them to call round or do you arm yourself with a rifle?

It's people like you who are glad scumbags get off scot free are kicking 10 different colours of **** out of an innocent person.

No because I don't compare scumbags to a wild beast in it's natural environment.

It's like those idiots who climb into a lions cage at the zoo, then people are surprised when the animal attacks, maims and often kills the person.

It's a freaking bear that felt threatened by intruders and fought back.

And yes, if I was in Montana and was attacked by a bear I'd defend myself, especially if it was near my home.

However, when a group of people go off into the wild and are attacked by a bear in it's natural territory, bad things are going to happen to you. It's a bloody fact of nature.

It wasn't me!

Sonics2k wrote: »

It's a freaking bear that felt threatened by intruders and fought back.

It came into the camp and attacked. If it felt threatened it would have left. Big predators are not inherently afraid of human beings in their own environment.

However, when a group of people go off into the wild and are attacked by a bear in it's natural territory, bad things are going to happen to you. It's a bloody fact of nature.

Unless you take precautions and carry a means of protection, of course, which is what happened here. I hate this concept that "here be dragons", that there are parts of the world off limits because they're populated by dangerous creatures. If I'm prepared to accept the risk and take along the means to deal with them, so be it. I certainly don't deserve reproach for acting in self defence if it should come to it.

Sea Sharp

How the sweet fcuk are people saying they shouldn't have shot the bear.
If it was the last polar bear in the world and shooting it would lead to its extinction you'd still be justified in shooting it if it poses a threat to a human.

Sonics2k

It wasn't me! wrote: »

It came into the camp and attacked. If it felt threatened it would have left. Big predators are not inherently afraid of human beings in their own environment.



Unless you take precautions and carry a means of protection, of course, which is what happened here. I hate this concept that "here be dragons", that there are parts of the world off limits because they're populated by dangerous creatures. If I'm prepared to accept the risk and take along the means to deal with them, so be it. I certainly don't deserve reproach for acting in self defence if it should come to it.

The camp being in the bears natural territory.

I'm not saying they shouldn't of defended themselves, or shot the bear, because they clearly had to.

I'm just saying I have a lack of real sympathy for them personally.
I do obviously feel sorry for the families of the victims, just not so much for the actual victims.

Shane L

They should have watched more bear grylls. Could have used their own piss to scare em off :P

Artur Foden

I do obviously feel sorry for the families of the victims, just not so much for the actual victims.

The victim was 17 years old and his parents had probably paid a tour company to bring him on the trip. 17 years old!!!

Not only was he a child, but he was also foreign (being British) to Norway and I'm willing to bet wouldn't have necessarily have known the dangers.

giles lynchwood

"Polar bears are not endangered,their just unlucky". Robin Williams.

Temptamperu

Sea Sharp wrote: »

How the sweet fcuk are people saying they shouldn't have shot the bear.
If it was the last polar bear in the world and shooting it would lead to its extinction you'd still be justified in shooting it if it poses a threat to a human.

Yet we dont kill humans that kill other humans even though they pose a threat. The Animal was in its natural habitat and doing what it does naturally. the humans were in the wrong place and not following what they where told to do.

yimrsg

If the bear was killed to prevent the deaths of more people then it's completely understandable that it was shot/killed. Why are people up in arms about a person's instinct for self preservation?

Had it escaped it, the polar bear it would associate humans as a new source of prey so it would become more dangerous. I think there is a similar policy in certain parts of the states where if a bear kills a person it is destroyed.

A tv show on rte2 last night mentioned that bears learn faster than chimpanzee's when the reward is food. It's not that humans taste better but rather past encounter(s) with humans resulted in food for the polar bear.

I'd guess that there was several factors to the attack, bear could have become desensitised to humans or near starvation, there might have been food stored near or in one of the tents, (caches of food are meant to be left far away from camps) and possibly the guides weren't fully prepared or had no series of people on watches.

If you think about the norm in Africa where people drive about in Safari in open topped jeeps where pretty much any animal is capable of entering but yet doesn't, imagine if one pride of lions discovered that these were moving buffets. Just because a system has become the norm doesn't mean it's 100% safe.

"it's coming right for us!" :rolleyes:

Stomping into the grounds of an endangered species and then killing one of them through your own stupidity. Jesus.

steddyeddy

They went into an area were they were at risk of attack. rip to the man who died all sympathy to him and his families but they were bast%ards to shoot the bear. I dont buy the asociate humans with food thing either polar bears are man hunters and have attacked men in the past that doesnt mean we have to shoot all polar bears, just have the sense to stay away from a 2000lbs carnivore.

steddyeddy

yimrsg wrote: »

If the bear was killed to prevent the deaths of more people then it's completely understandable that it was shot/killed. Why are people up in arms about a person's instinct for self preservation?

Had it escaped it, the polar bear it would associate humans as a new source of prey so it would become more dangerous. I think there is a similar policy in certain parts of the states where if a bear kills a person it is destroyed.

A tv show on rte2 last night mentioned that bears learn faster than chimpanzee's when the reward is food. It's not that humans taste better but rather past encounter(s) with humans resulted in food for the polar bear.

I'd guess that there was several factors to the attack, bear could have become desensitised to humans or near starvation, there might have been food stored near or in one of the tents, (caches of food are meant to be left far away from camps) and possibly the guides weren't fully prepared or had no series of people on watches.

If you think about the norm in Africa where people drive about in Safari in open topped jeeps where pretty much any animal is capable of entering but yet doesn't, imagine if one pride of lions discovered that these were moving buffets. Just because a system has become the norm doesn't mean it's 100% safe.

The lions know that humans=food as do a lot of creatures. Chimps regularly attack and kill people, chimps in sierra leone have developed a taste for babys. Many times on safari people are attacked by lions, rhinos and hippos but the standard protocol is not to kill the creature but to fire in the air and try and scar the creature off.

If these people didnt know a 1000-2000lbs carnivore was and always will be a maneater they shouldnt have been allowed a gun. Absolute cowards.

Norwayviking

Jesus not another one.
When are they going to learn!!!

Chuck Stone

They learned their expedition skills from the Timothy Treadwell Institute.



.

yimrsg

steddyeddy wrote: »

They went into an area were they were at risk of attack rip to the man who died all sympathy to him and his families but they were bast%ards to shoot the bear. I dont buy the asociate humans with food thing either polar bears are man hunters and have attacked men in the past that doesnt mean we have to shoot all polar bears, just have the sense to stay away from a 2000lbs carnivore.

So you think a bear with thousands of years of evolution to survive in one of the most extreme climates on planet earth wouldn't have the faculty to quickly associate a particular stimulus being positive or negative?

Their whole survival depends on identifying food sources and this bear found one in humans camping in tents. Whether the people were in the wrong or right to be there is beside the point that the bear attacked 5 people, killing one.

Yeah the survivors are b**tards alright.

steddyeddy

yimrsg wrote: »

So you think a bear with thousands of years of evolution to survive in one of the most extreme climates on planet earth wouldn't have the faculty to quickly associate a particular stimulus being positive or negative?

Their whole survival depends on identifying food sources and this bear found one in humans camping in tents. Whether the people were in the wrong or right to be there is beside the point that the bear attacked 5 people, killing one.

Yeah the survivors are b**tards alright.

Its not beside the point this is an endangered creature that these people shoud have been no where near.

You missunderstand my original point, these polar bears probraly already asociate man with food they will usually attack on sight anyway! It wouldnt have been more likely to attack people after this if it survived. Yes they are b"stards and ones who put themselves in this danger.

Mickeroo

They were right to shoot the bear. How many would be dead if they didn't? I think polar bears are beautiful animals and should be protected, but the bear wouldn't put a human's life above that of it's own so why should a human value a bear's life over another humans. In a fight or flight survival situation you look after you and yours, to say otherwise is naive.

steddyeddy

seamus wrote: »

Uh...yes? Otherwise all you're doing is getting revenge against a creature which is incapable of understanding the concept.

You're projecting human morality onto animals. I don't need to explain to you how utterly pointless and barbaric that is. Do you think that other polar bears will see what happened and be afraid? Do you think any purpose is served by killing an animal just because it's killed someone?

Should we put them on trial too?

Self-defence, I don't have a problem with. But clearly the idiots in charge of this expedition didn't take the necessary precautions in regards to detection and protection against polar bears. And now one guy is dead, 4 of his friends injured and one endangered animal destroyed.

All because someone morons didn't plan correctly. An animal just does what it does. It can't be held accountable for its actions.

Exactly when an anmial escapes from a zoo for instance and kills its not to blame, its only doing whats natural. It didnt choose to be in the situation

steddyeddy

Mickeroo wrote: »

They were right to shoot the bear. How many would be dead if they didn't? I think polar bears are beautiful animals and should be protected, but the bear wouldn't put a human's life above that of it's own so why should a human value a bear's life over another humans. In a fight or flight survival situation you look after you and yours, to say otherwise is naive.

Naive is bringing 80 people to the territory of the worlds biggest land carnivore and thats putting it lightly. Apart from the death of the bear they endangered the lives of those 80 people they brought with them. It would be like some one leading a bunch of inexperienced campers into grizzly country.

Dangerous Man

This is just the beginning. We now have bears that are willing to attack innocent bystanders at the drop of a hat. The way I see it, this is a definite precursor for a more general pattern of bear aggression. I think rather than wait for the inevitable bear attack, we should be pro-active and attack them first. We have the upper hand (paw) in that we have the technology; I really don't see what we have to fear from launching a sustained campaign against them.

I would imagine that if people banded together, rolled up their shirtsleeves and put in some honest, decent work - we could be rid of these marauding packs of murderous animals in a couple of years.

Given that the impetus for the new bear uprising seems to be stemming from the north, we should start there and try to prevent further radicalization. And, when that particular piece of business is dealth with we can, if necessary, work our way south - dealing with other breeds as we go.

The reign of bear terror - a plague on all of our neighbourhoods for too long now will be at an end.

I want my children to sleep at night. I want my grandparents to feel safe in their homes.

Do you?