‘The bear hunted him’: B.C. camper killed by black bear didn’t stand a chance

Well, that ought to start some conversation and create its fair share of hysteria around here…

No one needs or wants to get killed in a bear attack and likewise no one wants to get killed in a car wreck. I see both as accidents—one in the woods and one on a road. Living out in the woods has dangers just like driving a car, and these dangers come with the turf.

It's sad the person had to be killed and it's sad a wolf and a bear had to be killed. "Wilderness" has its share of accidents and in my opinion we need to see these events as accidents. It wouldn't be wilderness if these things didn't happen.

But we can't overreact and try to make all outdoor experiences safe by removing the threats. Killing a wolf which may of had no connection to the death is overreacting.

… according to authorities.

"Not one of those five hundred million people lost their lives due to bears the day before either" a spokesman said, adding "nor the day before, nor the day before, nor the day before nor the day before nor the day before nor the day before nor the day before nor the day before…" That went on for about fifteen minutes.

"It's been about 203 days since the last fatal bear attack" he said. "In the meantime, over 2,000,000 people died from other, more boring, less exciting causes."

“My brother didn’t have any defensive wounds,” said sister, Folland O’Connor.

This sounds factual.

“The bear hunted him.”

This sounds more like the brother's conjecture.

Bear- and cougar attacks are on the rise in regions with resource exploitations. The other day, a Russian postal worker survived a brown bear attack near Amur. A few people got attacked near Fort McMurray and Grande Prairie. The animals involved in the attacks were noticeably undersized or starving.

Ironically, what all these regions have in common is severe deforestation and oil-extraction. So that seems to suggest the carrying capacity of the regions were lowered, which meant more likelihood of animals hunting people.

And remember, even the leading expert on bear attacks confirmed many black bears are predatory:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kjuMqCL6kk

To be honest, considering the man-inflicted activities in the region where the man in question was killed, I don't wonder why.

The article doesn't mention it, but I'm curious how much alcohol may have been involved. (Fiancee when back into the RV to sleep around 1:30am, he had fallen asleep by the fire.)

>"I'm curious how much alcohol may have been involved"

J&A: that was one of my thoughts, too. Alcohol or some other recreational substance. It's still tragic for the families involved, but an impaired human, soundly sleeping, out in the open, in an area with lots of food smells all increase the minuscule chance of a bad outcome.

"And remember, even the leading expert on bear attacks confirmed many black bears are predatory"

I don't think that's what he said and I don't think that's reality. If "many black bears are predatory" (on humans) they must be the worst predators on earth. According to that same expert "At least 63 people were killed in 59 incidents by non-captive black bear (Ursus americanus)during 1900–2009." Way less than one person PER YEAR in North America.

More people will die of various causes in the next 10 minutes in North America than were killed by black bears in that 109 year period.

Of course there are many mundane deaths that occur more frequently than bear attacks, but the statement is still very much in line with the paper "Fatal attacks by American black bear on people: 1900–2009" by Stephen Herrero et al.

From the abstract:

"Of fatal attacks, 91% (49 of 54) occurred on parties of 1 or 2 persons. In 38% (15 of 40) of incidents, peoples' food or garbage probably influenced the bear being in the attack location. We judged that the bear involved acted as a predator in 88% (49 of 56) of fatal incidents. Adult (n = 23) or subadult (n = 10) male bears were involved in 92% (33 of 36) of fatal predatory incidents, reflecting biological and behavioral differences between male and female bears. That most fatal black bear attacks were predatory and were carried out by 1 bear shows that females with young are not the most dangerous black bears"

Nevertheless, I don't really worry about bears. I am more likely to die from a moose-accident on the highway en route to a hiking destinations than being mauled by a bear in the bush.

Pretty much meets the conditions outlined in the article. On top of that, the wildlife in that region is under enermous stress from habitat loss from the oil and gas industry. The locals there are reporting strange behavioural abnormalities in moose and other animal populations.

Besides, Mackenzie is not that far from other regions where oil-field workers are complaining about the changes in animals' behaviours as well; which also led to an attack on two workers by one cougar.

There's a world of difference between "many black bears are predatory" and "many of the very, very rare fatal black bear attacks are predatory." It's not just semantics.

Maybe 1 out of 600,000 bear in North America kills someone in a given year. What is that, .00016%? Out of FATAL bear attacks about 88% are predatory.

I did the math once. About 1 out of 20,000 people per year are murderers in the U.S. and Canada. Black bears, about 1 out of 600,000 kill someone. Per capita, people are 30 times more dangerous.

http://bucktrack.blogspot.com/2011/02/bears-should-you-be-afraid.html

Not really about semantics, but rather contextual.

It's a rather strange form of nitpicking considering the context is about a person who was killed by a bear in a predatory manner and quoting (or rather citing) a press release released shortly after a major paper was published.

The last time I encountered such petty behaviour was from an undegrad who was attacking another student's thesis during a seminar and got expelled from class for his behavioural misconduct.

"Not really about semantics, but rather contextual."

Sorry Dave, you're simply wrong. The 'leading expert on bear attacks' did not confirm that many black bears are predatory. He judged that the majority of bears in those attacks acted as predator. Those two things are not the same in any context.

Dave,

What you originally stated was not just misleading, it was dead wrong. Buck correctly pointed out how and why you were wrong. No need to get your feelings hurt.

No feelings hurt. Just clearing up the air with someone who obviously has an overly passionate feeling about the subject; especially with one who has a reputation surrounding it across many forums. (I just don't comment on many American and Canadian forums because it's suicide for a social democrat to post anywhere outside of European outdoors forums.)

But I still don't see what's wrong with the statement considering anyone can check the PDF (available for free on the Internet) or listen to the press release for clarification.

I do understand why it's a dangerous statement if said bluntly stated without a citation or a reference as it does mislead the audience into thinking something is not true; epsecially if it is on a broader subject rather than a nrrowly-focused one. But since the video explains the subject more much succinctly, it is really odd to be a pilkunnussija about it.

Dave, I'll add my voice to the consensus that you were both wrong and misleading, and that Buck was quite right to point that out.

And as for this pomposity:
"The last time I encountered such petty behaviour was from an undegrad who was attacking another student's thesis during a seminar and got expelled from class for his behavioural misconduct."

If you're an academic, you will certainly know that if you made that comment in a scientific context, what you said would be exactly the kind of inaccurate and misleading representation of the evidence that would get a thesis sent back for a rewrite.

if you read that 92% of serial killers are men, would you then declare most men are serial killers ?

You quote a source that states most fatal bear attacks are by predatory males, but you conclude that most bears are predatory.

Willie, I love the example from the OJ Simpson trial:

"The chance that a husband kills his wife? A fraction of a percent. Acquit!"

The relevant statistic, of course: the probability that a husband has killed his wife GIVEN that we know she has been murdered by someone. Perhaps more like 50%.

A statement based on inapplicable conditional probability is not "contextual", it's just plain wrong.

"If you're an academic, you will certainly know that if you made that comment in a scientific context, what you said would be exactly the kind of inaccurate and misleading representation of the evidence that would get a thesis sent back for a rewrite."

If it was an academic paper, it would be sent back for a rewrite, yes. You are entirely correct there. But those theses will be published by the university, and the reputation of the university might be harmed by endorsing a poorly-written paper.

A seminar is different. It is a much more casual atmosphere, and it assumes anyone who entered the room read the relevant materials, is there to discuss ideas freely, and have a discussion about it. There are debates and criticisms flung around to encourage growth and evolution of the individuals and their ideas, but getting angsty over someone's choice of words is moderated. Usually, it is allowed for a person to explain what he or she meant or correct him or herself. If behaviour persists even though the person explained his or her position, they get booted and given a fail. To avoid being booted out, the person with an axe to grind should be able to demonstrate the ability to move on rather being obsessive.

There is a huge difference between having an appointed supervisor review the thesis or submitting it to a committee seated by several doctorates to read the draft before finalizing it; and having somewhere between 10 to 40 students seated in a classroom helping another student develop his or her thesis by hosting a public forum of discussion. So, don't assume the process in both settings are the same.

Last time I checked, none of this is going to be submitted to a journal or a magazine. It's only a discussion forum.

By coming to this thread, I assumed the audience is here to discuss what happened near Mackenzie, British Columbia and the possible factors leading up to the attack. Therefore, to me, the discussion is about bear attacks in specific, not the bear populations in general. So there is no need for me to be very specific with the way the sentence is structured.

So, yes, bear attacks are rarer than hen's teeth: most hikers know that and statistically is rarer than hypothermia, firearm accidents and felling accidents. If this is a forum where people are more irrationally afraid and believe in a lot of myths (and yes, I stayed in countries where people won't leave the house because a single lone wolf has been sighted 15 months prior amd it's really difficult to convince those people that it is oaky to go for a hike in the forest again), then I would write my sentence differently because the audience would be different.

"fif you read that 92% of serial killers are men, would you then declare most men are serial killers ?

You quote a source that states most fatal bear attacks are by predatory males, but you conclude that most bears are predatory."

Irrelevant as it is a strawman. Now, if it was an article about a serial killer stalking a woman, and killing her inside her house, and the discussion forum happens to be a feminist Facebook group, then I would say "many men are predatory" because the audience there understands the context to why women are targeted; even though, in reality, the vast majority of men don't kill, and most of them don't degrade women. At the same time, it's important to acknowledge the statistics as it is a very important topic for feminists.

Saying "most" requires hard evidence. "Many" doesn't. Too many people conflate the two to mean the same thing. Technically one can say "many men like gay sex" even though the actual percentage who are openly gay, bisexual or transgender is thought to be around 3.4% to 3.8% (or 1% to 6% depending on your sources). So be careful with the accusation next time.

You were wrong. Move on. You keep making yourself look more foolish by trying (and failing) to argue.

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/news/11055958/story.html

A closure is in effect on trails around Tunnel Mountain in Banff National Park after a grizzly bear charged a hiker when he stumbled across it eating an elk carcass.

more at link …

Vancouver Sun could use some tighter editing. I was puzzled for a moment as to why a hiker would be eating an elk carcass. I guess it'd cut down on your carried food weight…

Is this a discussion among the vast multitudes of young white-trash men, with mullet haircuts, sleeping outside after midnight, by a campfire, while drunk, next the trailer while their (also mulleted!) fiancé also sleeps it off?

Er, no. The entire North American population of those people died last week. But for that population (formally n=1), sure, many of the black bears they encounter have predatory behavior.

But for this group of UL backpackers are there many black bears they have or will ever encounter that are predatory towards humans? Good grief, no!

For the sarcasm-impaired, my 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th words (and therefore my first entire paragraph) were sarcastic. Which is not to say my remaining post is sarcasm-free.

I think all this just goes to prove how difficult it is being a social democrat on an American forum.