Canada walking?

Hedley Malloch said:

This is a common fallacy. A bear could give a race-horse a run for its money; you won't
outrun them.

Jokes aside, I've often wondered about this. Although I've never seen actual footage of a bear
running faster than the legal limit for a car travelling through an urban area, I'm willing to
accept this on trust. However, given the ungainly bulkiness of the beast, I'd be surprised if they
were as manoeuvrable as a fit human. With all that weight their momentum would probably make sudden
changes of direction a little tricky.

So just as you'd zig-zag in a random fashion whilst running from the enemy under fire, why not take
the same approach through a forest? Zig-zagging between dense trees? I wonder how the speed and
momentum of a heavy bear could cope with that?

I'm pretty sure I once read that if you do run away from a bear, don't run uphill. On the other
hand, *do* run downhill, especially if it's steep. Apparently bears aren't well suited to running
downhill, something to do with having shorter front legs I think, makes them topple over. Sounds
like a good strategy, unless they topple over and roll downhill over you!

Paul Not a bear expert.
--
Calendars for 2004
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukcal.htmlOpen ↗
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

[email hidden] (Hedley Malloch) wrote in
:"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

If shot-guns aren't your scene (and I could well understand that) then try and be philosophical
about it. It probably won't happen, but if it does, then what the hell. There are worse things
than being eaten by a bear - such as staying safe in your campsite, hotel or hostel, bored and
listening to your arteries hardening.

Yes. Think of it as recycling.

--
Adrian

Chris Townsend said:

(For the record I've spent well over two years in total walking and camping in bear country,
including over a year in grizzly country, most of it solo. The only time I've carried a gun was in
Spitsbergen, where there are polar bears).

Polar bears actually go hunting for meat and don't mind one bit if it is human.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

"Chris Townsend" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Remember that the chances of even seeing a bear are unlikely and that most of the rare encounters
don't result in an attack. In over a year in grizzly country I've seen just three grizzly bears,
only one of which was fairly close.

What about Mountain Lions? Are they anything to worry about? One opinion that I remember from
somewhere (probably rec.backcountry) is that it was a stupid idea and asking for trouble to go
running alone in mountain lion territory.

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I'm pretty sure I once read that if you do run away from a bear, don't run uphill. On the other
hand, *do* run downhill, especially if it's steep. Apparently bears aren't well suited to running
downhill, something to do with having shorter front legs I think, makes them topple over.

You might be confusing that with the accepted practice for catching Haggis in the Highlands.

Quoted message said:

Jokes aside, I've often wondered about this. Although I've never seen actual footage of a bear
running faster than the legal limit for a car travelling through an urban area, I'm willing to
accept this on trust. However, given the ungainly bulkiness of the beast, I'd be surprised if they
were as manoeuvrable as a fit human. ... (snip) ...

Paul,

Quoted message said:

Jokes aside, I've often wondered about this. Although I've never seen actual footage of a bear
running faster than the legal limit for a car travelling through an urban area, I'm willing to
accept this on trust. However, given the ungainly bulkiness of the beast, I'd be surprised if they
were as manoeuvrable as a fit human. ... (snip) ...

Paul,

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Hedley Malloch said:

This is a common fallacy. A bear could give a race-horse a run for its money; you won't
outrun them.

Jokes aside, I've often wondered about this. Although I've never seen actual footage of a bear
running faster than the legal limit for a car travelling through an urban area, I'm willing to
accept this on trust. However, given the ungainly bulkiness of the beast, I'd be surprised if they
were as manoeuvrable as a fit human. ... (snip) ...

Paul;

I would incline toward a Darwinian view in answering this one. Which is better suited to winning a
life or death race through the Arctic tundra or the Canadian pine forest? A hungry bear ... or, say,
a Chartered Accountant from Sevenoaks? I know who I would back.

Another point is that one cannot always pick one's field of battle. A few years ago a grizzly bear
wandered into the Ramparts Creek YH on the Ice-Fields Parkway to look for food. The YH consisted of
a number of self-contained wooden buildings; one for the gents' dorm, one for the ladies etc.
Naturally while the bear was on the loose everyone was confined to their particular part of the
barracks, leaving one lady locked in the wc chemical toilet; and three others trapped in the sauna.
The lady in the toiled enjoyed a particularly terrfying 15 minutes while the bear attepted to pick
the lock. One can easily imagine the condition of the poor souls locked in the sauna. Their
experience was so traumatic that legend has it that they never ate lobster again.

Anyway, eventually the Park Rangers turned up in a helicopter. They decided that the grizzly was one
of the most dangerous type of wild bear; that which had lost its fear of humans. This left them no
alternative but to kill it, which they did. On inspecting the compound the Rangers found that the
locks on the dustbins in the compound were defective and had been for some time, thus indirectly
encouraging the bears to call. The warden was prosecuted, convicted and fined a considerable amount.

In message <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Chris Townsend said:

All the studies show that bears can accelerate faster than humans. They can sprint at 35-40 mph,
twice as fast as a fit human.

I'm still reluctant to accept that. I guess it depends how the studies define acceleration.
Acceleration over a particular distance perhaps? Look how fast a sprinter shoots out of the blocks,
I can't conceive of a bear starting that quickly.

Maybe not as fast as a sprinter but how many humans can start that quickly?

Quoted message said:

They may accelerate fast after a certain very short amount of time, but I find it hard to believe
that a human wouldn't have the initial head start (but not for very long).

You might get a few yards.

Quoted message said:

Of course much depends on surprise. A human carrying a heavy sack would not be able to accelerate
very quickly.

And generally bear attacks only happen when the bear has been surprised and feels threatened.

Quoted message said:

I've seen footage of bears running and they tend to "lope" along. Very quick loping I presume, but
I've never seen a bear take off at lightning speed like a sprinter does. It takes them a few
moments to really build up speed from what I've seen. I really would like to see footage of a bear
accelerating.

I've seen the real thing. They do take off at amazing speeds, even uphill.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There's also the problem that if you see a bear and start to run that may provoke a charge. All
the experts say you should not run. Most bear encounters don't result in an attack anyway. You
don't want to provoke a chase response.

That's what started this whole debate. I never suggested that running was a good idea, merely that
if a human did choose to run, he *might* (depending on circumstances - surprise, terrain, gear
carried, etc.) get an initial head start before the bear caught up (which wouldn't take long).

Quoted message said:

I once came round a blind corner on a wooded trail and met a black bear coming the other way.
It was maybe ten feet away. We both stopped and then the bear took off, running uphill at
amazing speed.

That's the smaller bear isn't it? Presumably they have much faster acceleration than a larger bear
(grizzly or polar)? How big is a black bear compared to human?

Black bears are smaller than grizzly/brown bears (same species) but they're still big - average for
males: weight 170kg, height at shoulder 95cm, length without tail 168cm.

Black bears are found in many areas of North America where grizzlies have been exterminated. They
are the ones that raid camp sites for food and break into cars, especially in the Sierra Nevada in
California.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If it had charged I would have had no time to even start running.

Surprise? Too much weight in your pack?

Both those. We had eye contact for maybe a second before the bear turned and ran.

Quoted message said:

Of course if the bear charges first then it takes the initiative and gets the head start. I
was thinking of the human taking the initiative, but as you say that isn't the best thing to
do. I wouldn't suggest that a human take such an initiative unless there were other factors in
his favour.

The recommendations are to talk to the bear gently and either stand still or back away slowly. The
idea is to reassure the bear that you are not a threat.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I've seen bears running fast uphill and dodging rocks and trees. They are surprisingly agile.

Well I'll take your word for that, but aren't you talking about the smaller bears?

Yes. I've only seen three grizzlies in the wild and none of them ran away! I have seen film of
grizzlies running.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The outcome isn't predetermined

Thank you. That's all I wanted to hear.

Quoted message said:

but in most cases where a bear charges and the charge isn't a bluff (which most are) the bear
catches the human.

I'm sure they do.

In message <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Chris Townsend said:

Quoted message said:

I can't conceive of a bear starting that quickly.

Maybe not as fast as a sprinter but how many humans can start that quickly?

Not that many, but I was thinking primarily of a young fit human, probably unencumbered with a
rucksack.

I don't know if that's been tried!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They may accelerate fast after a certain very short amount of time, but I find it hard to
believe that a human wouldn't have the initial head start (but not for very long).

You might get a few yards.

10? 20? It all depends how away the bear is when you start running, taking into account initiative
and surprise factors.

I don't know, I'd doubt it would be more than twenty yards. Again I don't think anyone has
measured this.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And generally bear attacks only happen when the bear has been surprised and feels threatened.

Good point.

Quoted message said:

I've seen the real thing. They do take off at amazing speeds, even uphill.

Well given your experience I'll take your word for that. Any comment on the idea that bears are not
very good at running downhill?

All the experts say it's a myth. I did see a young black bear run downhill when I was in the Sierra
Nevada about eighteen months ago. I met it on the trail. It was about ten yards away and instantly
climbed up a small tree. I took a photograph (last frame - would you believe it?
- and no time to get out my other camera) then it slid down the tree and took off downhill at a
fairly quick run.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Black bears are smaller than grizzly/brown bears (same species) but they're still big - average
for males: weight 170kg, height at shoulder 95cm, length without tail 168cm.

Sounds like the same height as me. Not very big at all then, so they probably could accelerate
pretty fast.

They're on all fours of course. And very heavily built, especially grizzlies. Some American Indians
call grizzlies "real bears". I understood that when I first encountered one. It was massive and
rippled across the ground, muscles bulging. It was about fifty metres away and clearly didn't know I
was there.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The recommendations are to talk to the bear gently and either stand still or back away slowly.
The idea is to reassure the bear that you are not a threat.

Of course.

:-)

In article <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Chris Townsend said:

Quoted message said:

I can't conceive of a bear starting that quickly.

Maybe not as fast as a sprinter but how many humans can start that quickly?

Not that many, but I was thinking primarily of a young fit human, probably unencumbered with a
rucksack.

In starting blocks? Look at the shape of a bear. How much muscle do they have in their buttocks and
thighs? They have a much higher proportion of muscle bulk there than we do and that can produce the
necessary force for them top easily out-accelerate us in any situation.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They may accelerate fast after a certain very short amount of time, but I find it hard to
believe that a human wouldn't have the initial head start (but not for very long).

You might get a few yards.

10? 20? It all depends how away the bear is when you start running, taking into account initiative
and surprise factors.

I think a super fit human in starting blocks would get almost nowhere before the bear gets them.

An interesting article.

mountainnature.comBearEncounters.htmOpen ↗

--

dscs.demon.co.ukdscs.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

On 10 Jan 2004 12:33:41 -0800, [email hidden] (Hedley Malloch)

Quoted message said:

I would incline toward a Darwinian view in answering this one. Which is better suited to winning a
life or death race through the Arctic tundra or the Canadian pine forest? A hungry bear ... or,
say, a Chartered Accountant from Sevenoaks? I know who I would back.

But the bear's suitability isn't so very obviously down to speed/manoeuvrability. Things like
strength, sharpness of teeth, insulation, camouflage - these are what spring to mind. My money would
be on the accountant with a rifle.

--
Paul My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003): paulrooney.netfirms.compaulrooney.netfirms.comOpen ↗

Please sponsor me for the London Marathon at: justgiving.comlondon2004Open ↗

Hedley Malloch said:

Quoted message said:

However, given the ungainly bulkiness of the beast, I'd be surprised if they were as manoeuvrable
as a fit human. ...

Quoted message said:

I would incline toward a Darwinian view in answering this one. Which is better suited to winning a
life or death race through the Arctic tundra or the Canadian pine forest?

If we're talking evolution then this isn't a fair question, but since you mention it I think
it's pretty obvious which species has been more successful. There were bears in Britain once,
weren't there?

If we're talking instead about a single confrontation, which we are, then you shouldn't
automatically assume that the bear would win. If the same confrontation happened numerous times, the
bears would win some, the humans would win some. It all depends on the exact situation. Where does
this encounter take place? On a steep rocky hillside? A flat snow covered forest? Next to a river?
What equipment does the human have with him? The tactical situation can vary enormously, and with it
the likelihood of either opponent winning the battle. Ever seen that Anthony Hopkins film The Edge?

Quoted message said:

A hungry bear ... or, say, a Chartered Accountant from Sevenoaks? I know who I would back.

What about a non-hungry bear and Rambo? A chartered accountant is not the most likely person to be
wandering around the arctic tundra. More likely it would be someone equipped for and quite
experienced in such conditions, who would most likely be quite fit too.

To assume that the bear will always have the best chance of winning the encounter assumes that size,
strength and speed are everything. They're not. I'm pretty sure that a human (particularly a fit
one) must be far more manoeuvrable than a bulky bear. The bear's weight would create a lot of
momentum when it got up to speed (and given it's weight I doubt it could accelerate from 0-40mph
that quickly), which would make it difficult to engage in sudden changes of direction, which a
lighter slower human could easily do. A human would have less top speed, but faster acceleration
because of the lower weight. If the terrain was filled with rocks and trees I'd say that a fit,
agile human might have a good chance of outmanoeuvring the bear, at least for a while. It might come
down to who got tired first. Then again, on flat open terrain I'd put my money on the bear.

There's another very important factor - intelligence! Okay, there are a lot of stupid humans around,
but the main reason that humans have been so successful on this planet it their ability to think
their way out of problems. A bear's view of the problem would be very simple - food - chase it - eat
it. But a quick thinking human could analyse the tactical situation and possibly beat the bear with
strategy and ingenuity.

In WWII, if you compared the humble Sherman tank to the dreaded Tiger, you wouldn't put money on the
Sherman, but the Tiger was heavy and slow and it was quite possible for Shermans to outmanoeuvre
them and destroy them, depending on the situation and the tactics used. As a wargamer I enjoy
playing the underdog and trying to ouwit brawn with brains. Same principle would apply with bears,
although that's not a game I'd personally like to play.

Quoted message said:

Another point is that one cannot always pick one's field of battle.

Which is of course what I was talking about. The field of battle can make a very big difference to
the outcome.

Quoted message said:

Anyway, eventually the Park Rangers turned up in a helicopter. They decided that the grizzly was
one of the most dangerous type of wild bear; that which had lost its fear of humans. This left
them no alternative but to kill it, which they did.

Given what I've been saying about tactics and strategy, I'd favour carrying a gun. Not to blast a
bear at first sight of course, but to be used as appropriate. Warning shots first. Perhaps the noise
would scare it off.

There is something satisfyingly non-worrying about wild camping in the British hills though, isn't
there? :-)

Paul
--
Calendars for 2004
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukcal.htmlOpen ↗
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

"Chris Townsend" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Mountain lion attacks have increased slightly in recent years and there have been a number of high
profile cases of runners being attacked, usually in areas where housing developments have spread
into mountain lion territory. It's still a tiny risk though.

By strange coincidence this was posted on the uk.rec.cycling today.

news.bbc.co.uk3382997.stmOpen ↗

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 20:52:58 +0000, Paul Rooney <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

(Hedley Malloch) said:

I would incline toward a Darwinian view in answering this one. Which is better suited to winning a
life or death race through the Arctic tundra or the Canadian pine forest? A hungry bear ... or,
say, a Chartered Accountant from Sevenoaks? I know who I would back.

But the bear's suitability isn't so very obviously down to speed/manoeuvrability. Things like
strength, sharpness of teeth, insulation, camouflage - these are what spring to mind. My money
would be on the accountant with a rifle.

I'd prefer a very large calibre handgun - something like a .44 as I doubt a .357 or 9mm would have
enough to stop a grizzly. Rifles are a pain in trees as well.

--
79.84% of all statistics are made up on the spot. The other 42% are made up later on. In Warwick -
looking at flat fields and that includes the castle.

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

To assume that the bear will always have the best chance of winning the encounter assumes that
size, strength and speed are everything. They're not. I'm pretty sure that a human (particularly a
fit one) must be far more manoeuvrable than a bulky bear. The bear's weight would create a lot of
momentum when it got up to speed (and given it's weight I doubt it could accelerate from 0-40mph
that quickly), which would make it difficult to engage in sudden changes of direction, which a
lighter slower human could easily do. A human would have less top speed, but faster acceleration
because of the lower weight. If the terrain was filled with rocks and trees I'd say that a fit,
agile human might have a good chance of outmanoeuvring the bear, at least for a while. It might
come down to who got tired first. Then again, on flat open terrain I'd put my money on the bear.

I vaguely remember a bit of film on TV where a bear chased and caught some kind of young deer
in a forest.

Paul Saunders said:

To assume that the bear will always have the best chance of winning the encounter assumes that
size, strength and speed are everything. They're not. I'm pretty sure that a human (particularly a
fit one) must be far more manoeuvrable than a bulky bear. The bear's weight would create a lot of
momentum when it got up to speed (and given it's weight I doubt it could accelerate from 0-40mph
that quickly), which would make it difficult to engage in sudden changes of direction, which a
lighter slower human could easily do. A human would have less top speed, but faster acceleration
because of the lower weight. If the terrain was filled with rocks and trees I'd say that a fit,
agile human might have a good chance of outmanoeuvring the bear, at least for a while. It might
come down to who got tired first. Then again, on flat open terrain I'd put my money on the bear.

I'd stake money on the bear every time. Being able to go fast (30-35mph in bursts against 20 for
humans) would be completely useless without the acceleration to reach top speed quickly. If you can
accelerate in a straight line, you can likely change direction just as easily - there is no
difference between momentum and inertia, if you like. While the momentum at 35mph will be greater,
this will have no bearing if the bear is only doing 25 to catch dinner :-)

--
Stop the world! I want to get off!

Mail john rather than nospam...

Quoted message said:

What equipment does the human have with him?

If I'm fighting a bear can I be in a tank ?

--
Boo

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:33:27 GMT, [email hidden] (Chris

Street) said:

Rifles are a pain in trees as well.

I'll have to bow to your greater experience on that.

--
Paul My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003): paulrooney.netfirms.compaulrooney.netfirms.comOpen ↗

Please sponsor me for the London Marathon at: justgiving.comlondon2004Open ↗

Chris Street said:

Paul Rooney said:

(Hedley Malloch) said:

I would incline toward a Darwinian view in answering this one. Which is better suited to winning
a life or death race through the Arctic tundra or the Canadian pine forest? A hungry bear ... or,
say, a Chartered Accountant from Sevenoaks? I know who I would back.

But the bear's suitability isn't so very obviously down to speed/manoeuvrability. Things like
strength, sharpness of teeth, insulation, camouflage - these are what spring to mind. My money
would be on the accountant with a rifle.

I'd prefer a very large calibre handgun - something like a .44 as I doubt a .357 or 9mm would have
enough to stop a grizzly. Rifles are a pain in trees as well.

rec.backcountry is thataway - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"