Canada walking?

* Chris Street <[email hidden]> deigned to grace uk.rec.walking
* with their presence by declaiming:

Quoted message said:

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.

I think I'd be inclined to rifled slugs in a pump action 12 bore!

Regards: Jim Ford

AndyP said:

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

Then again I've seen TV footage where a hare outwitted it's predator, which seemed destined to catch
it. There's always an element of luck in these things, the roll of the dice. It can be as simple as
a misplaced footfall, for either the predator or the prey.

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

John Laird said:

I'd stake money on the bear every time.

You may be right in many instances, but I think you understimate human ingenuity. Also, I think the
circumstances of such an encounter would make a big difference. In deep snow the human wouldn't
stand much chance.

Quoted message said:

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.

No it wouldn't, why do you make that assumption? I'm not saying that a bear can't accelerate
quickly, but it certainly couldn't accelerate as quickly as a human. It's a fact of physics that a
big heavy creature can't accelerate as quickly as a small light creature. Look how quickly a cat can
accelerate compared to a human.

Indy Cars are bigger, heavier and more powerful than F1 cars, and can reach higher top speeds, but
F1 cars accelerate faster and brake faster due to their lower weight. On an oval an F1 car couldn't
keep up with an Indy Car, but would probably beat it on a twisty circuit like Monaco.

Quoted message said:

If you can accelerate in a straight line, you can likely change direction just as easily

Sorry, I just don't accept that. The heavier the weight the stronger the momentum and the more
difficult it would be to change direction. And I don't believe a bear could accelerate as quickly as
a human. (I am of course talking about a fit, agile human, not an office worker out for a stroll
carrying a few stones of lard around his belly.)

Quoted message said:

While the momentum at 35mph will be greater, this will have no bearing if the bear is only doing
25 to catch dinner :-)

Rubbish. At any given speed, a heavy creature will have more difficulty turning than a light
creature. Size, strength and weight do not convey agility, quick acceleration and manoeuvrability.
These characteristics are mutually incompatible. The same is true in all areas of life - aeroplanes,
tanks, racing cars, animals, birds and so on. Bears are big and strong, humans are light and
manoeuvrable, not to mention more ingenious. If a bear catches the human, the human doesn't stand a
chance, but given a suitable tactical situation, a human could out-manoeuvre a bear. It all depends
on the nature of the battlefield (and the type of human - overweight accountants need not apply).
The outcome is not pre-determined.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

They are apain on ice too... very heavy.. But welcome.. and you never know what
is......................

Behind You!

Richard Webb

On 11 Jan 2004 15:44:21 GMT, Jim Ford <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

* Chris Street <[email hidden]> deigned to grace uk.rec.walking
* with their presence by declaiming:

Quoted message said:

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.

I think I'd be inclined to rifled slugs in a pump action 12 bore!

Is that to escape quickly? Point at the grizzly and let the recoil take you away from it...:-)

Quoted message said:

Regards: Jim Ford

--
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:

No it wouldn't, why do you make that assumption? I'm not saying that a bear can't accelerate
quickly, but it certainly couldn't accelerate as quickly as a human. It's a fact of physics that a
big heavy creature can't accelerate as quickly as a small light creature. Look how quickly a cat
can accelerate compared to a human.

Cheetahs and tortoises? Elephants and slugs?

Quoted message said:

Indy Cars are bigger, heavier and more powerful than F1 cars, and can reach higher top speeds, but
F1 cars accelerate faster and brake faster due to their lower weight. On an oval an F1 car
couldn't keep up with an Indy Car, but would probably beat it on a twisty circuit like Monaco.

Stick a 2CV engine in a F1 car and it'd still be lighter.

(No, not much on telly is there.)

Paul Saunders said:

John Laird said:

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.

No it wouldn't, why do you make that assumption? I'm not saying that a bear can't accelerate
quickly, but it certainly couldn't accelerate as quickly as a human. It's a fact of physics that a
big heavy creature can't accelerate as quickly as a small light creature. Look how quickly a cat
can accelerate compared to a human.

Different scale of animal. My theory is that large animals expend large amounts of energy moving
quickly (and most, even the fastest and leanest, can only do so for short times - man is quite
unique in being able to carry on for hours). However I cannot reasonably believe that any animal
capable of running at 30mph, considering the effort involved in each stride (we are not talking
rolling balls here and there are considerable momentum changes as each foot/paw hits the ground) can
be short of accelerative power. Following that assumption, as change of direction is simply
acceleration in a different direction, that could be surprisingly easy too.

Physics merely states that acceleration = force/mass. You can overcome extra mass by over-
compensating with proportionally more force. But the smaller you go, other factors come in - small
animals and insects can stand accelerative (and decelerative) forces that would break larger
animals, literally. So there would be no point a human having the muscle bulk to move as fast as a
cat as he/she would probably break major bones or damage connective tissues in the attempt :-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you can accelerate in a straight line, you can likely change direction just as easily

Sorry, I just don't accept that. The heavier the weight the stronger the momentum and the more
difficult it would be to change direction. And I don't believe a bear could accelerate as quickly
as a human. (I am of course talking about a fit, agile human, not an office worker out for a stroll
carrying a few stones of lard around his belly.)

(Damn, did I leave my web-cam on ?!!)

Anyone know a friendly bear owner ? I still think you are not giving them enough credit for agility.
Many humans have come off worse in bear encounters, and the darn things can catch fast-moving fish
in water too... The optimal escape strategy *might* be rapid dodging, or even a sort of bull-
fighting approach, hoping to tire the bear out while expending relatively little energy, but I hope
I never have to put this to the test.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

While the momentum at 35mph will be greater, this will have no bearing if the bear is only doing
25 to catch dinner :-)

Rubbish. At any given speed, a heavy creature will have more difficulty turning than a light
creature. Size, strength and weight do not convey agility, quick acceleration and manoeuvrability.
These characteristics are mutually incompatible. The same is true in all areas of life -
aeroplanes, tanks, racing cars, animals, birds and so on. Bears are big and strong, humans are
light and manoeuvrable, not to mention more ingenious. If a bear catches the human, the human
doesn't stand a chance, but given a suitable tactical situation, a human could out-manoeuvre a
bear. It all depends on the nature of the battlefield (and the type of human - overweight
accountants need not apply). The outcome is not pre-determined.

I still don't buy this momentum/lack of agility argument. A bear is not a rolling stone or a car on
wheels. Just being able to maintain a speed 30+mph will take a huge effort. That must mean it can
reach that speed quickly too. Most large animals are moving at close to their top speed in a matter
of a few strides - can you think of an example of one that takes much longer ? (It would be useless
in evolutionary terms.) My point about relative speed is simply that if you can only manage 15mph,
half the bear's top speed, just imagine how manoeuverable he might be at what to him is barely a
trot ! Humans are quite slow in animal terms - we have endurance instead. And, as you say, tactics.

[All the web links I browsed while typing this more or less recommended lying still and playing dead
in the absence of weapons or defensive sprays. Couldn't find any on flight strategies.]

--
When all else fails... take a nap.

Mail john rather than nospam...

AndyP said:

Cheetahs and tortoises? Elephants and slugs?

Cheetahs are small and light.

Tortoises have a completely different combat strategy - the bunker strategy.

Elephants can't accelerate quickly.

Slugs are just a stupid design? I mean how did evolution come up with those things? Seems they
mainly come out when it's raining, when other creatures are taking shelter. Maybe they just taste so
bad that nothing wants to eat them? Anybody eaten slug? Would anybody want to try?

Quoted message said:

Stick a 2CV engine in a F1 car and it'd still be lighter.

I guess that's the difference between a fit human and an unfit one.

Quoted message said:

(No, not much on telly is there.)

Oh I don't know, there's a few laughs in this "Scary Movie".

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

AndyP said:

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Slugs are just a stupid design? I mean how did evolution come up with those things? Seems they
mainly come out when it's raining, when other creatures are taking shelter. Maybe they just taste
so bad that nothing wants to eat them? Anybody eaten slug? Would anybody want to try?

Well there's plenty of 'em in our garden so they must be doing something right designwise. Can't
see that they'd be much different to snails to eat. I expect Ray Mears has had a few in his time.

Hedgehogs allegedly eat them, but I've often seen hedgehogs and slugs eating off the same plate of
food we put out.

--
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 ↗

Paul Rooney wrote

Quoted message said:

Hedgehogs allegedly eat them, but I've often seen hedgehogs and slugs eating off the same plate of
food we put out.

In the immortal words of Crcodile Dundee in the scene when he's cooking a Goanna, 'You can eat it
but it tastes like sh!t'. The Hog might behave differently to the slug were the plate empty.

Chris

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

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.

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?

Quoted message said:

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

Surprise? Too much weight in your pack? 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.

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?

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.

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

John Laird said:

Quoted message said:

Look how quickly a cat can accelerate compared to a human.

Different scale of animal.

But so is a human and a *large* bear.

Quoted message said:

However I cannot reasonably believe that any animal capable of running at 30mph, considering the
effort involved in each stride (we are not talking rolling balls here and there are considerable
momentum changes as each foot/paw hits the ground) can be short of accelerative power.

I'm not saying they don't have any accelerative power, of course they do, I just don't think it
would be as quick as a smaller lighter human, not for the first few strides that is (it would catch
up very quickly).

Quoted message said:

Following that assumption, as change of direction is simply acceleration in a different direction,
that could be surprisingly easy too.

That assumption isn't logical IMO. The heavier an object the greater the momentum. I can't see how a
sudden change of direction could be "surprisingly easy" for a heavy animal. It would take longer for
a heavy animal to change direction than a lighter animal, or at least require a lot more effort,
thus tiring it out quicker.

Quoted message said:

Physics merely states that acceleration = force/mass. You can overcome extra mass by over-
compensating with proportionally more force.

True, and perhaps I underestimate just how much extra force a bear has.

Quoted message said:

Anyone know a friendly bear owner ? I still think you are not giving them enough credit for
agility.

Perhaps not. All I can go on personally is what I've seen in nature documentaries (and I have seen
many), and I don't recall ever seeing bears accelerate at lightning speed or change direction
quickly. I have seen them loping along quickly at speed but in a very cumbersome looking way. A
sudden change of direction would probably force them to slam on the brakes, resulting in them
sliding along the ground for 30 yards before they came to a halt, as seen in cartoons! ;-)

Quoted message said:

Many humans have come off worse in bear encounters,

I'm sure they do.

Quoted message said:

and the darn things can catch fast-moving fish in water too...

True.

Quoted message said:

The optimal escape strategy *might* be rapid dodging, or even a sort of bull-fighting approach,
hoping to tire the bear out while expending relatively little energy, but I hope I never have to
put this to the test.

I really would like to see someone try this, but I doubt it could be done safely. One possible
reason for doing this might be to reach the safety of a building a short distance away, or maybe to
jump off a cliff into a river!

Quoted message said:

I still don't buy this momentum/lack of agility argument. A bear is not a rolling stone or a car
on wheels. Just being able to maintain a speed 30+mph will take a huge effort. That must mean it
can reach that speed quickly too.

Not necessarily, that's not logical IMO. It might be able to reach that speed fairly quickly, but
the greater the weight the more force is required to move it and it would accelarate relatively
slowly as a result. Just because it's not on wheels does not invalidate my comparison to motor
racing. I chose Indy Cars and F1 as an example because they are actually very similar in many ways.
The size, weight and power of the cars is similar, but slightly different. I think an Indy Car is
50% heavier, but with a more powerful engine. They can reach higher speeds but they accelerate more
slowly and require a longer distance to stop. I can't see that these laws of physics would not apply
to big heavy bears. An alert, fit human taking the initiative would probably get an immediate head
start, but would then be quickly caught by the bear. The question is whether or not the human could
do anything of critical importance in that very short time, like reaching a nearby building perhaps.

Quoted message said:

Most large animals are moving at close to their top speed in a matter of a few strides

I agree, and those few strides may give a human a few seconds to do something, or not as the case
may be. There's certainly no point running if you don't have a good reason too.

Quoted message said:

My point about relative speed is simply that if you can only manage 15mph, half the bear's top
speed, just imagine how manoeuverable he might be at what to him is barely a trot !

It may be barely a trot to him, but his weight still creates momentum. Maybe he does have enough
force to change direction quickly at that speed, but that would tire him out proportionately faster.

Quoted message said:

[All the web links I browsed while typing this more or less recommended lying still and playing
dead in the absence of weapons or defensive sprays. Couldn't find any on flight strategies.]

I doubt that a flight strategy would be a good idea in most instances. I'm just debating what might
happen if you did run, not suggesting that it's a good idea.

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

Paul Saunders said:

I doubt that a flight strategy would be a good idea in most instances. I'm just debating what might
happen if you did run, not suggesting that it's a good idea.

Well, I did come across tales of bears running uphill at 15mph, and bears crashing through any
amount of undergrowth and small trees at full speed, so I guess it's probably not a good idea
at all :-)

--
My computer has a nut loose on the keyboard.

Mail john rather than nospam...

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Slugs are just a stupid design? I mean how did evolution come up with those things? Seems they
mainly come out when it's raining, when other creatures are taking shelter. Maybe they just taste
so bad that nothing wants to eat them? Anybody eaten slug? Would anybody want to try?

Well there's plenty of 'em in our garden so they must be doing something right designwise. Can't see
that they'd be much different to snails to eat. I expect Ray Mears has had a few in his time.

"Paul Rooney" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Hedgehogs allegedly eat them, but I've often seen hedgehogs and slugs eating off the same plate of
food we put out.

When I used to go fishing I remember them being recommended as good bait for chub. Slugs that is,
not hedgehogs.

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I doubt that a flight strategy would be a good idea in most instances. I'm just debating what
might happen if you did run, not suggesting that it's a good idea.

I expect if you looked back over your shoulder you would see the rare sight of a bear doubled up
with laughter whilst he sportingly gave you a head start so as not to make getting lunch to easy.

AndyP said:

Well there's plenty of 'em in our garden so they must be doing something right designwise.

Well whatever it is, it isn't speed and manoeuvrability. Clearly they don't need to run away from
anything because nothing wants to chase them.

Quoted message said:

Can't see that they'd be much different to snails to eat.

Why would anyone want to eat those slimy things anyway? Other than out of desperation?

Quoted message said:

I expect Ray Mears has had a few in his time.

Snails or slugs?

I seem to find the former less objectionable than the latter for some inexplicable reason.

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

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.

Out of interest is this supposed to also work with angry bulls ? And has anyone here ever had the
misfortune to need to try it ?

--
Boo

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

AndyP said:

I expect if you looked back over your shoulder you would see the rare sight of a bear doubled up
with laughter whilst he sportingly gave you a head start so as not to make getting lunch to easy.

Indeed! :-)

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