Polar bear kills young British adventurer in Norway.

Sonics2k · 05-08-2011 06:14PM

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! · 05-08-2011 06:19PM

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 · 05-08-2011 06:23PM

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 · 05-08-2011 06:26PM

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 · 05-08-2011 06:29PM

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

Artur Foden · 05-08-2011 06:30PM

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 · 05-08-2011 06:30PM

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

Temptamperu · 05-08-2011 06:32PM

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 · 05-08-2011 06:33PM

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.

05-08-2011 06:34PM

"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 · 05-08-2011 06:38PM

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 · 05-08-2011 06:42PM

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 · 05-08-2011 06:46PM

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

Chuck Stone · 05-08-2011 06:47PM

They learned their expedition skills from the Timothy Treadwell Institute.

.

yimrsg · 05-08-2011 06:49PM

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 · 05-08-2011 06:54PM

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 · 05-08-2011 06:55PM

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 · 05-08-2011 06:58PM

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 · 05-08-2011 07:00PM

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 · 05-08-2011 07:07PM

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?

CorkMan · 05-08-2011 07:09PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

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.

:rolleyes:

Were they supposed to fight the bear with their fists?

steddyeddy · 05-08-2011 07:10PM

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.

Well if you live in montana where there are more grizzlys than most american states. The locals are usually prepard for them as they are endangered in some north american states. The other possibility is black bear which rarely attacks humans. Either scenario is completely different from walking into the terroritory of one of the largest carnivores.

You cant compare a scumbag kicking someone for fun to a bear eating someone to satisfy hunger.

Mickeroo · 05-08-2011 07:12PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

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.

I agree it was a bad idea to do that too, they probably didn't follow proper protocol in storing their food either ie away from the tents. Bad planning is generally the cause of most accidents in the outdoors however polar bear attacks on humans are extremely rare, although they are increasing due to the retreating polar ice. Regardless of what they should or shouldn't have done, the situation they found themselves in meant they had little choice but to shoot the bear unfortunately. Every animal will try and protect itself if it has to and humans are no exception.

yimrsg · 05-08-2011 07:15PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

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

Humans have through evolution moved into these areas so to say they don't belong there is tripe. Humans aren't an alien species that was introduced by mistake, we've produced adaptations to a particular environment much like the bear.

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.

You're original point was lambasting the people who shot a bear in an act of self preservation and protection of kin.

steddyeddy · 05-08-2011 07:16PM

CorkMan wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Were they supposed to fight the bear with their fists?

You see the problem with your statement is no one was forced into an area with a creature that has been known to kill walrus from time from time. What to do really depends on wheter a bear attacks out of hunger or fright. The former requires gouging of eyes hitting the nose fighting tooth and nail (no pun intended) the latter requires lieing in a ball untill the bear realises your not a threat.

They should have tried to scare it away with gunshot it sometimes works depending on how close you are. Either way dont march into an area with polar bears for god sake. They endangered 80 people.

Chuck Stone · 05-08-2011 07:18PM

Just looked up 'bear spray' and they have it. I was dissapointed that it didn't work like this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_B_n-Rbros

Mickeroo · 05-08-2011 07:19PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The learned their expedition skills from the Timothy Treadwell Institute.

In fairness Treadwell probably wouldn't have been killed if he hadn't gone back to the area when the bears he was familiar with had left the area for the winter. Still a nutter though.

Chuck Stone · 05-08-2011 07:21PM

Mickeroo wrote: »

Still a nutter though.

Yep

It wasn't me! · 05-08-2011 07:26PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

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

You still have to take the quickest route to solving the problem, which is typically killing the dangerous animal.

Norwayviking · 05-08-2011 07:30PM

If you follow and respect the rules,nothing will happen.
Its quite simple

http://www.sysselmannen.no/hovedEnkel.aspx?m=45658

http://www.sysselmannen.no/hovedEnkel.aspx?m=45659

Polar bear kills young British adventurer in Norway.

Comments