Guidelines for Grizzly Country

Chatted with her back in July when she was leading a pair of (acutely out of place looking) dudes down from Sperry. A cruder person might note that she's rather hot.

In response to Mr. Shaw's post above…

Did you miss all of his disclaimers throughout the article? Did you miss his stressing of further education about bears? Did you miss this paragraph:

"It should be noted that I am not a wildlife biologist, and that given the seriousness of this subject any application of these ideas should only be undertaken after substantial consideration and cross-examination. I am a backpacker and wilderness enthusiast with an amateur's appreciation for grizzlies and a husband's enthusiasm for not dying especially soon. It should also be noted that this article deals exclusively with bears in the continental United States, and almost exclusively with grizzly bears. Black bears, especially those outside the northern Rockies, and grizzly bears outside the Lower 48 are different creatures with different behaviors and should be investigated and treated as such."

I don't see any claim that his knowledge of bears should be taken as gospel. In fact, quite the contrary. I believe you've misunderstood the purpose of his writing.

If David's article made just ONE person stop and rethink their attitude towards bears (i.e., further investigating and learning about bears), then the article was well worth it and has achieved its purpose.

"I don't see any claim that his knowledge of bears should be taken as gospel. In fact, quite the contrary. I believe you've misunderstood the purpose of his writing."

"Guidelines for Grizzly Country".

Sure sounds like a list of safety rules from an expert. I would expect to read the
10 commandments on living around bears, with a title like that.

Perhaps it should have been "Musings of a Backpacker in Grizzly Bear Country"

Providing potential safety information in exchange for money sorta sticks in the
craw too.

Dave – Great article and thanks. I've been to GNP a few times and most recently had a pretty close enconter with a mother and two cubs. Luckily we were taking all the precautions (we felt) neccessary so any bears would know we were coming. I think that played a role in avoiding a mishap as the bears knew we were there way before we knew the bears were there!

We stopped to take some pictures of the wild flowers in a nice popping meadow as we scanned the meadow we saw the mother and her two cubs about 15/20 yards away. We got our bear spray ready and just backed out of the trail. They clearly recognized our presence and they paid no attention to us (group of five). I'm not sure what would have happend should we have surprised them (mom) without warning!

Trust me, I thank the Fates at least once a week that I'm not a scientist. Wills latest stove SOTMR reminds me well: I'm glad folks with those brains are out there, and I'm glad I'm not one of them.

Eugene, my wife is already bearanoid enough. She'll appreciate that picture.

As mentioned, there's a fine case to be made that I have no business writing on this subject. I'm ok with agreeing to disagree on that issue. However Bernard, I don't think I follow too well on your last two points. If this is a subject of consequence for you I'd encourage you to expand them.

It's worth noting that the title as submitted was "Some Practical and Metaphysical Guidelines for Hiking in Grizzly Country." Addie edited my verbosity down. Has happened before, will happen again. Though to be honest the way in which we tend to approach a word like Guidelines when it's in print points to both the overprivileged position of the scientific method in our discourse and our (as a culture)s disturbing trend to not want to think for itself. If I've complicated either then I'm very pleased.

I think you show my point actually. Why does a person with NO expert knowledge write an article on a subject that is entitled Guidelines to Grizzly Country" He is not in a position to evaluate anything. At best it is an article that encourages the same level of thinking about this complex subject. OK we might want to realize we humans are lower on the food chain. There are no risks until we humans take ourselves into their world of survival. Then there are the posts on killing vs protecting. And those who say we have the right to get killed or kill them. End of story. Various posts about it is our right to backpack. Case closed.

All heat no light. This topic deserves a writer who knows more. I am sticking to this opinion. I expect more here. I love this site. I am not saying this personally about the author, but about the issue.

Yes you can disagree with me. I do not think the author knows enough to make those who read it rethink their attitude. His motives are fine. It is just one of those topics that is very difficult to raise any deeper awareness and respectful practice protocols for backcountry behavior.

It still sounds as if Bernard is missing the point of the article. Assuming he is correct in asserting that only diehard scholars and researchers should write on the subject, that would pretty much eliminate any mention of bears on this site. Is it better to have NO information instead of at the very least a starting point?

"It is just one of those topics that is very difficult to raise any deeper awareness and respectful practice protocols for backcountry behavior."

Sure, I can agree with this. But what would be more effective at reaching an audience on the lower levels of awareness? Plopping down hundreds or thousands of pages of research and literature in front of a bunch of people or a primer article that gets them to begin to understand the complexities of the subject? My money is on the shorter, easier read article.

Should we refrain from any mention of backcountry first aid, since the majority of us are not trained in medicine? Should I not comment on packrafting because I am not Roman Dial? Misinformation is one thing, but any positive participation in a subject is always helpful.

I just think its an odd placement of criticism.

David my comment was not personal to you, but you appear to take it as such. I am commenting on the need for a larger comprehensive perspective on this subject that you admit you don't have. And, with a subject of this complexity I simply do not think you have raised the general consciousness of this subject.

And, as your reaction shows, to both the overprivileged position of the scientific method in our discourse and our (as a culture)s disturbing trend to not want to think for itself.

You as many people make the mistake of having a false bias against and misunderstanding of what science and scientific approaches are. In this way your article actually sets back our openness to the best way we humans have of progressing our knowledge of the the world. It is a complete misunderstanding you espouse of what science is and how knowledge is gained.

I have the right to disagree with your methods, opinions, speculations, conclusions. I don't agree that better brains should be demeaned and I am glad of having a doctorate in research so I can accurately understand the true strengths and limits of science.

Perhaps the best aspect of this site is that science is not generally demeaned nor misunderstood here. Your position is nor rare but not an accurate one of the merits of science and the necessity of using all those tools with regards to this subject.

What Scientific methods of inquiry might tell us is whether knowing the bear's way of perceiving, sensing, and behaving might reduce the risk or at least tell us to avoid certain situations if we are able to do so. In a crude analogy, it is like how we humans choose to live with pit bulls. Although maligned it is accurate to state that scientific research with dogs shows pit bulls have a lower threshold of what constitutes danger to the domain, dramatically more strength and jaw power than many dogs, and a tendency to not let go. Yet many humans choose to live with them even with infants knowing that one slip may be serious wounds or fatal ones. We have learned scientifically to understand dogs to a certain extent that allows for creating a balanced, calm, submissive animals that may not attack us if we are seen by them as the leader of a pack or dominant over them.

However, dogs and not wolves and trying to adapt these methods is perilous with certain pit bulls, let alone wolves. If we follow this line of logic, grizzly bears do not have 10,000 years of human selection to make them sensitive to human cues.

They have enormous strength, how they see the world and makes choices about it is a matter of current and necessary further research. Suffice it to say, we are lower on the food chain when in their territory, and if we do not know how they see a given moment and we do something which triggers or does not dissuade, the bear's ways of seeing things may result in our last moment on earth alive.

As you say, it is possible that even after further research we may find that their behavior is random, or at least so complex as to not reduce risk and dangerousness to a level that choosing to simply not invade their territory is the choice or not. However, it is too soon to know if this is true or that we have yet to understand them sufficiently.

As noted scientist Stephen Jay Gould once said:
"Perhaps randomness is not merely an adequate description for complex causes that we cannot specify. Perhaps the world really works this way, and many events are uncaused in any conventional sense of the word. Perhaps our gut feeling that it cannot be so reflects only our hopes and prejudices, our desperate striving to make sense of a complex and confusing world, and not the ways of nature. The world is full of signals that we don't perceive. Tiny creatures live in a different world of unfamiliar forces. Many animals of our scale greatly exceed our range of perception for sensations familiar to us. […] What an imperceptive lot we are."

David all I am saying here is thee is a need to innovate, imagine, and create inspired research on the grizzly to discover more about them. We may find them unpredictable or so complex they might as well be unpredictable. Or we may find dramatic and important answers to traveling in their presence. For the moment though lets remember that much needs to be done. Until then, like being a pit bull person, one rolls the dice and decides if it is worth dying for.

Yes science can be misused as can any method. As Gould also said: "Orthodoxy can be as stubborn in science as in religion. I do not know how to shake it except by vigorous imagination that inspires unconventional work and contains within itself an elevated potential for inspired error. As the great Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto wrote: “Give me a fruitful error any time, full of seeds, bursting with its own corrections. You can keep your sterile truth for yourself.” Not to mention a man namedThomas Henry Huxley who, when not in the throes of grief or the wars of parson hunting, argued that “irrationally held truths may be more harmful than reasoned errors.”

Thanks for your words Bernard. I particularly agree with your penultimate paragraph.

Satellite tracking collars are one development which might provide more data. A Griz in my area was recently recorded swimming seven miles across a lake to reach new habitat, not something considered especially typical before.

As I've made clear, I tend to come down on the side which your Gould quotation espouses; that biological systems are sufficiently complex that presuming science will ever provide anything approaching definitive understanding is quite arrogant. You no doubt see this over reach as the perversion of the scientific method which it is.

Right Gary. To give an example, the Kendall et all 2008 study of the grizz population in Glacier estimated around 240 bears, but the 95% confidence interval was 202-304. How can biologists improve that last number without being unethically invasive (ie radio collaring a huge number of bears)? Not an easy question to answer.

Bad day for a lot of scientists….I can't see how. If this observation stands than I say it is a very exciting day for many many physicists. Maybe you mean the world of general relavtivity is now turned upside down? That is a theory that has and will continue to describe macro scale physical phenomena very well. Just as Newtonian Mechanics continues to.

The practical applications borne out of science over recorded history are amazing, as is the level of understanding we have gained of the world we live in.

So what if science leads to more questions….I say it leads to better questions and definately answers….just depends on how good we are at using them — say this certainly applies to bear safety.