Re: Mountain biker killed by bear in BC

Jeff Strickland said:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

It's unclear if the bear, estimated to be about 54 kilograms (120
pounds), had in fact fatally attacked the woman.

Quoted message said:

"They don't know whether the bear was the cause or whether it was just
there," said Mark Woodburn, vice-president of Panorama Mountain
Village.

Quoted message said:

The ministry is investigating the incident and an autopsy will be done
on the bear to determine if it had killed the woman. An autopsy will
also be done on the woman. The mountain operations were closed Sunday
as RCMP and conservation officers investigated the incident.

<

</snip>

Jumping to conclusions again, are we?

It sounds like the reporter was, anyway. It is very sad that the bear
was killed without haivng answered some questions. It seems like
there could have been another solution than the wild west variety
"shoot first" approach.

However, in grizz or cougar country, the LAST thing I'd do is act like
a meal and go fast, at least off well-established roads with good side
visibility. That not only makes it harder for the person to be aware
of what the heck is around the corner, but also gives the predator the
impression that you are a frightened snack. Your speed is likely to
trigger a chase response in the critter...and you probably cannot
outrun either animal, on foot or on wheels.

And for heaven's sake, no matter how you travel, carry pepper spray
that you can retrieve quickly.

Bruce Jensen

"Bruce Jensen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jeff Strickland said:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

It's unclear if the bear, estimated to be about 54 kilograms (120
pounds), had in fact fatally attacked the woman.

Quoted message said:

"They don't know whether the bear was the cause or whether it was just
there," said Mark Woodburn, vice-president of Panorama Mountain
Village.

Quoted message said:

The ministry is investigating the incident and an autopsy will be done
on the bear to determine if it had killed the woman. An autopsy will
also be done on the woman. The mountain operations were closed Sunday
as RCMP and conservation officers investigated the incident.

<

</snip>

Jumping to conclusions again, are we?

It sounds like the reporter was, anyway. It is very sad that the bear
was killed without haivng answered some questions. It seems like
there could have been another solution than the wild west variety
"shoot first" approach.

However, in grizz or cougar country, the LAST thing I'd do is act like
a meal and go fast, at least off well-established roads with good side
visibility. That not only makes it harder for the person to be aware
of what the heck is around the corner, but also gives the predator the
impression that you are a frightened snack. Your speed is likely to
trigger a chase response in the critter...and you probably cannot
outrun either animal, on foot or on wheels.

And for heaven's sake, no matter how you travel, carry pepper spray
that you can retrieve quickly.

Bruce Jensen

First, the rangers (searchers of the missing woman) found the bear over a
body. The way they recover a human from a bear is that they shoot the bear
to protect the other humans from being attacked. People shoot bears. Too
bad, so sad. Glad I'm not a bear.

Second, they do not know that the woman was going fast or slow. They did not
describe the area other than to say she was riding a marked trail -- that
appears by other parts of the story to be a ski run in winter.

Third, the story does not suggest that the woman may have gone down, and the
bear simply took advantage of the situation to have a meal.

Fourth, most animals will always go the other way in response to human
visitation. Indeed, all animals know people are coming long before people
know there are animals in the area.

Lastly, what conclusion did the reporter jump to?

Bruce Jensen said:

It sounds like the reporter was, anyway. It is very sad that the bear
was killed without haivng answered some questions. It seems like
there could have been another solution than the wild west variety
"shoot first" approach.

IMHO, RCMP made the right call to shoot the bear. At the time, they
probably couldn't be certain she was dead, and obviously the priority
was to save her life if at all possible. The bear was guarding the
kill and not letting them approach.

Look at it from the officer's perspective: The consequences of the
opposite scenario (woman bleeding to death while RCMP await a
conservation officer to tranquilize the bear) are far worse than
perhaps hastily shooting the bear.

If nothing else, I am sure that this poor person's family would be
grateful that her remains were protected as much as possible.

Regards,
Anthony

Jeff Strickland said:

First, the rangers (searchers of the missing woman) found the bear over a
body. The way they recover a human from a bear is that they shoot the bear
to protect the other humans from being attacked. People shoot bears.

Not decent ones (sorry, that's slightly churlish). I gather your
knowledge of bears is somewhat limited.

A 120-pound bear will sometimes protect a food source, but many will
be smart enough to recognize if they're outnumbered by humans and
retreat. OTOH, many people, especially law enforcement types, are
pretty trigger-happy and are liable to shoot *just because.* This is
a personal observation based on what I've seen here localy. This
article also does not say whether the bear was attempting to defend
its "food" so we cannot tell whether the shot was warranted. Finally,
small black bears - in fact, any bears apart from polar bears - rarely
attack humans as a food source.

I believe that more creative and less deadly options *may* have
existed. Of course, I was not there, and neither were you. Heck,
based on what you say below, the bear may have even willing to retreat
if they gave it more than a second of response time.

Quoted message said:

Second, they do not know that the woman was going fast or slow. They did not
describe the area other than to say she was riding a marked trail -- that
appears by other parts of the story to be a ski run in winter.

That's nice.

Quoted message said:

Third, the story does not suggest that the woman may have gone down, and the
bear simply took advantage of the situation to have a meal.

It does not state it, but it implies that the *possibility exists*
with the following paragraphs:

"It's unclear if the bear, estimated to be about 54 kilograms (120
pounds), had in fact fatally attacked the woman.

"They don't know whether the bear was the cause or whether it was
just
there," said Mark Woodburn, vice-president of Panorama Mountain
Village. "

Quoted message said:

Fourth, most animals will always go the other way in response to human
visitation. Indeed, all animals know people are coming long before people
know there are animals in the area.

Most, but not all, especially if they are familar with otherwise
harmless people. I have personally watched thousands of wild animals,
bears included, who have made little or no effort to stay at much more
than arms length. I have surprised a few, too, and after a brief
period of alertness, they may either retreat or go about their
business. It depends quite a bit on the the circumstances.

Quoted message said:

Lastly, what conclusion did the reporter jump to?- Hide quoted text -

Sorry, I misread - Mike made that conclusion. Actually, the reporter
did a pretty good job reporting the facts, and not making assumptions.

The statistical probability remains that rapidly moving humans put
themselves at greater risk of animal attack than those who walk.
Runners and cyclists have been attacked far more than walkers by
predators, although not exclusively so. A cyclist moves faster than a
walker, and his/her legs will appear as though to run. Finally, the
bear may have been unfairly shot.

Bruce Jensen

Bruce Jensen said:

OTOH, many people, especially law enforcement types, are
pretty trigger-happy and are liable to shoot *just because.* This is
a personal observation based on what I've seen here localy.

Not sure where local is for you, but I can believe that for some areas
police might not do such a great job when it comes to dealing with
wildlife. However, I know that up here (Yukon territory, north of BC)
our RCMP frequently deal with these types of situations. Most of them
are trained as conservation officers as well as police. A place like
Invermere I would expect the same.

A bear guarding a fresh kill is likely to be quite aggressive, and
might not be easily forced away, even with gunfire. Probably the worst
situation outside of a mother guarding cubs.

Like I said in my earlier post, I think the officers made the right
call.

I'm not concerned with the welfare of the bear, sorry.

I am concerned with the outlandish lies of Michael J Vandeman that are told
in furtherance of the lie that says we should all stay at home and watch
nature programs on TV instead of getting a first-hand experience.

Mike will tell you that his agenda is bike tires, but it is really rubber.
Rubber belongs on cement, not dirt. That is Mike's real agenda.

"Bruce Jensen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jeff Strickland said:

First, the rangers (searchers of the missing woman) found the bear over a
body. The way they recover a human from a bear is that they shoot the
bear
to protect the other humans from being attacked. People shoot bears.

Not decent ones (sorry, that's slightly churlish). I gather your
knowledge of bears is somewhat limited.

A 120-pound bear will sometimes protect a food source, but many will
be smart enough to recognize if they're outnumbered by humans and
retreat. OTOH, many people, especially law enforcement types, are
pretty trigger-happy and are liable to shoot *just because.* This is
a personal observation based on what I've seen here localy. This
article also does not say whether the bear was attempting to defend
its "food" so we cannot tell whether the shot was warranted. Finally,
small black bears - in fact, any bears apart from polar bears - rarely
attack humans as a food source.

I believe that more creative and less deadly options *may* have
existed. Of course, I was not there, and neither were you. Heck,
based on what you say below, the bear may have even willing to retreat
if they gave it more than a second of response time.

Quoted message said:

Second, they do not know that the woman was going fast or slow. They did
not
describe the area other than to say she was riding a marked trail -- that
appears by other parts of the story to be a ski run in winter.

That's nice.

Quoted message said:

Third, the story does not suggest that the woman may have gone down, and
the
bear simply took advantage of the situation to have a meal.

It does not state it, but it implies that the *possibility exists*
with the following paragraphs:

"It's unclear if the bear, estimated to be about 54 kilograms (120
pounds), had in fact fatally attacked the woman.

"They don't know whether the bear was the cause or whether it was
just
there," said Mark Woodburn, vice-president of Panorama Mountain
Village. "

Quoted message said:

Fourth, most animals will always go the other way in response to human
visitation. Indeed, all animals know people are coming long before people
know there are animals in the area.

Most, but not all, especially if they are familar with otherwise
harmless people. I have personally watched thousands of wild animals,
bears included, who have made little or no effort to stay at much more
than arms length. I have surprised a few, too, and after a brief
period of alertness, they may either retreat or go about their
business. It depends quite a bit on the the circumstances.

Quoted message said:

Lastly, what conclusion did the reporter jump to?- Hide quoted text -

Sorry, I misread - Mike made that conclusion. Actually, the reporter
did a pretty good job reporting the facts, and not making assumptions.

The statistical probability remains that rapidly moving humans put
themselves at greater risk of animal attack than those who walk.
Runners and cyclists have been attacked far more than walkers by
predators, although not exclusively so. A cyclist moves faster than a
walker, and his/her legs will appear as though to run. Finally, the
bear may have been unfairly shot.

Bruce Jensen

Well he's tried the "dazzle them with brilliance" route and has seen that it
doesn't work because, well, he's an idiot. Now he's gone to the "baffle
them with [censored]" route after seeing everyone doesn't fall for how smart
he claims he is.
I'm just getting back into the sport after a long break. And back in the
mid/late 90's he was creeping around too. I was kind of hoping that nature
would have taken its course and he would have been run over by a herd of
horses or cows or whatever, but no such luck. Too bad there isn't an
extermintor for this type of problem.

"Jeff Strickland" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:1qwpi.5193$Da.830@trnddc07...

Quoted message said:

I'm not concerned with the welfare of the bear, sorry.

I am concerned with the outlandish lies of Michael J Vandeman that are
told in furtherance of the lie that says we should all stay at home and
watch nature programs on TV instead of getting a first-hand experience.

Mike will tell you that his agenda is bike tires, but it is really rubber.
Rubber belongs on cement, not dirt. That is Mike's real agenda.

"Bruce Jensen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jeff Strickland said:

First, the rangers (searchers of the missing woman) found the bear over
a
body. The way they recover a human from a bear is that they shoot the
bear
to protect the other humans from being attacked. People shoot bears.

Not decent ones (sorry, that's slightly churlish). I gather your
knowledge of bears is somewhat limited.

A 120-pound bear will sometimes protect a food source, but many will
be smart enough to recognize if they're outnumbered by humans and
retreat. OTOH, many people, especially law enforcement types, are
pretty trigger-happy and are liable to shoot *just because.* This is
a personal observation based on what I've seen here localy. This
article also does not say whether the bear was attempting to defend
its "food" so we cannot tell whether the shot was warranted. Finally,
small black bears - in fact, any bears apart from polar bears - rarely
attack humans as a food source.

I believe that more creative and less deadly options *may* have
existed. Of course, I was not there, and neither were you. Heck,
based on what you say below, the bear may have even willing to retreat
if they gave it more than a second of response time.

Quoted message said:

Second, they do not know that the woman was going fast or slow. They did
not
describe the area other than to say she was riding a marked trail --
that
appears by other parts of the story to be a ski run in winter.

That's nice.

Quoted message said:

Third, the story does not suggest that the woman may have gone down, and
the
bear simply took advantage of the situation to have a meal.

It does not state it, but it implies that the *possibility exists*
with the following paragraphs:

"It's unclear if the bear, estimated to be about 54 kilograms (120
pounds), had in fact fatally attacked the woman.

"They don't know whether the bear was the cause or whether it was
just
there," said Mark Woodburn, vice-president of Panorama Mountain
Village. "

Quoted message said:

Fourth, most animals will always go the other way in response to human
visitation. Indeed, all animals know people are coming long before
people
know there are animals in the area.

Most, but not all, especially if they are familar with otherwise
harmless people. I have personally watched thousands of wild animals,
bears included, who have made little or no effort to stay at much more
than arms length. I have surprised a few, too, and after a brief
period of alertness, they may either retreat or go about their
business. It depends quite a bit on the the circumstances.

Quoted message said:

Lastly, what conclusion did the reporter jump to?- Hide quoted text -

Sorry, I misread - Mike made that conclusion. Actually, the reporter
did a pretty good job reporting the facts, and not making assumptions.

The statistical probability remains that rapidly moving humans put
themselves at greater risk of animal attack than those who walk.
Runners and cyclists have been attacked far more than walkers by
predators, although not exclusively so. A cyclist moves faster than a
walker, and his/her legs will appear as though to run. Finally, the
bear may have been unfairly shot.

Bruce Jensen

john said:

Well he's tried the "dazzle them with brilliance" route and has seen that it
doesn't work because, well, he's an idiot. Now he's gone to the "baffle
them with [censored]" route after seeing everyone doesn't fall for how smart
he claims he is.
I'm just getting back into the sport after a long break. And back in the
mid/late 90's he was creeping around too. I was kind of hoping that nature
would have taken its course and he would have been run over by a herd of
horses or cows or whatever, but no such luck. Too bad there isn't an
extermintor for this type of problem.

Your death threat is duly notes. And turned over to the authorities.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"😉. Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Anthony DeLorenzo said:

Bruce Jensen said:

It sounds like the reporter was, anyway. It is very sad that the bear
was killed without haivng answered some questions. It seems like
there could have been another solution than the wild west variety
"shoot first" approach.

IMHO, RCMP made the right call to shoot the bear. At the time, they
probably couldn't be certain she was dead, and obviously the priority
was to save her life if at all possible. The bear was guarding the
kill and not letting them approach.

Look at it from the officer's perspective: The consequences of the
opposite scenario (woman bleeding to death while RCMP await a
conservation officer to tranquilize the bear) are far worse than
perhaps hastily shooting the bear.

If nothing else, I am sure that this poor person's family would be
grateful that her remains were protected as much as possible.

That's incredibly selfish. If you were in the bear's position, you
wouldn't want to be shot. Humans are the most selfish species in the
world....

Quoted message said:

Regards,
Anthony

--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"😉. Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

john said:

Well he's tried the "dazzle them with brilliance" route and has seen that
it
doesn't work because, well, he's an idiot. Now he's gone to the "baffle
them with [censored]" route after seeing everyone doesn't fall for how smart
he claims he is.
I'm just getting back into the sport after a long break. And back in the
mid/late 90's he was creeping around too. I was kind of hoping that
nature
would have taken its course and he would have been run over by a herd of
horses or cows or whatever, but no such luck. Too bad there isn't an
extermintor for this type of problem.

Your death threat is duly notes. And turned over to the authorities.

POINT OF ORDER
I don't know who Mike is talking about here, those are not my words. Since
Mike is known to cross post, my guess is that somebody replied to me and
trimmed the group he posts from ...

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Anthony DeLorenzo said:

Bruce Jensen said:

It sounds like the reporter was, anyway. It is very sad that the bear
was killed without haivng answered some questions. It seems like
there could have been another solution than the wild west variety
"shoot first" approach.

IMHO, RCMP made the right call to shoot the bear. At the time, they
probably couldn't be certain she was dead, and obviously the priority
was to save her life if at all possible. The bear was guarding the
kill and not letting them approach.

Look at it from the officer's perspective: The consequences of the
opposite scenario (woman bleeding to death while RCMP await a
conservation officer to tranquilize the bear) are far worse than
perhaps hastily shooting the bear.

If nothing else, I am sure that this poor person's family would be
grateful that her remains were protected as much as possible.

That's incredibly selfish. If you were in the bear's position, you
wouldn't want to be shot. Humans are the most selfish species in the
world....

Alternatively, if I was the woman that they were looking for, I'm sure I
would not want to be eaten. Bears are soooooo selfish ...

Quoted message said:

That's incredibly selfish. If you were in the bear's position, you
wouldn't want to be shot. Humans are the most selfish species in the
world....

That's a plain stupid remark, ruling out your existance....

There are at least SOME humans around that care for the bears. I can't
imagine that bears would care for us....

You may want to reread that. I'm pretty sure there isn't a death threat in
there. Can't be arrested for your hopes now can you

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

john said:

Well he's tried the "dazzle them with brilliance" route and has seen that
it
doesn't work because, well, he's an idiot. Now he's gone to the "baffle
them with [censored]" route after seeing everyone doesn't fall for how smart
he claims he is.
I'm just getting back into the sport after a long break. And back in the
mid/late 90's he was creeping around too. I was kind of hoping that
nature
would have taken its course and he would have been run over by a herd of
horses or cows or whatever, but no such luck. Too bad there isn't an
extermintor for this type of problem.

Your death threat is duly notes. And turned over to the authorities.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"😉. Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Jeff Strickland said:

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Anthony DeLorenzo said:

On Jul 24, 8:16 am, Bruce Jensen <[email hidden]> wrote:

> It sounds like the reporter was, anyway. It is very sad that the bear
> was killed without haivng answered some questions. It seems like
> there could have been another solution than the wild west variety
> "shoot first" approach.

IMHO, RCMP made the right call to shoot the bear. At the time, they
probably couldn't be certain she was dead, and obviously the priority
was to save her life if at all possible. The bear was guarding the
kill and not letting them approach.

Look at it from the officer's perspective: The consequences of the
opposite scenario (woman bleeding to death while RCMP await a
conservation officer to tranquilize the bear) are far worse than
perhaps hastily shooting the bear.

If nothing else, I am sure that this poor person's family would be
grateful that her remains were protected as much as possible.

That's incredibly selfish. If you were in the bear's position, you
wouldn't want to be shot. Humans are the most selfish species in the
world....

Alternatively, if I was the woman that they were looking for, I'm sure I
would not want to be eaten. Bears are soooooo selfish ...

BS. She was only protecting her cubs. That's UN-selfish. DUH!
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"😉. Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Doezel said:

Quoted message said:

That's incredibly selfish. If you were in the bear's position, you
wouldn't want to be shot. Humans are the most selfish species in the
world....

That's a plain stupid remark, ruling out your existance....

There are at least SOME humans around that care for the bears.

No mountain bikers, that's for sure! They are the lowest form of human
life, bar none.

I can't

Quoted message said:

imagine that bears would care for us....

That's just an excuse.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"😉. Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Jeff Strickland said:

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

john said:

Well he's tried the "dazzle them with brilliance" route and has seen that
it
doesn't work because, well, he's an idiot. Now he's gone to the "baffle
them with [censored]" route after seeing everyone doesn't fall for how smart
he claims he is.
I'm just getting back into the sport after a long break. And back in the
mid/late 90's he was creeping around too. I was kind of hoping that
nature
would have taken its course and he would have been run over by a herd of
horses or cows or whatever, but no such luck. Too bad there isn't an
extermintor for this type of problem.

Your death threat is duly notes. And turned over to the authorities.

POINT OF ORDER
I don't know who Mike is talking about here, those are not my words. Since
Mike is known to cross post, my guess is that somebody replied to me and
trimmed the group he posts from ...

It's "john" <[email hidden]>. Learn to read!
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"😉. Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

john said:

You may want to reread that. I'm pretty sure there isn't a death threat in
there. Can't be arrested for your hopes now can you

"Too bad there isn't an extermintor for this type of problem." Learn
to read!

Quoted message said:

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

john said:

Well he's tried the "dazzle them with brilliance" route and has seen that
it
doesn't work because, well, he's an idiot. Now he's gone to the "baffle
them with [censored]" route after seeing everyone doesn't fall for how smart
he claims he is.
I'm just getting back into the sport after a long break. And back in the
mid/late 90's he was creeping around too. I was kind of hoping that
nature
would have taken its course and he would have been run over by a herd of
horses or cows or whatever, but no such luck. Too bad there isn't an
extermintor for this type of problem.

Your death threat is duly notes. And turned over to the authorities.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"😉. Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"😉. Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Jeff Strickland said:

I'm not concerned with the welfare of the bear, sorry.

I am sorry too. That is the attitude of too many people in this
world. It also carries over to other humans.

Quoted message said:

I am concerned with the outlandish lies of Michael J Vandeman that are told
in furtherance of the lie that says we should all stay at home and watch
nature programs on TV instead of getting a first-hand experience.

Mike will tell you that his agenda is bike tires, but it is really rubber.
Rubber belongs on cement, not dirt. That is Mike's real agenda.

I agree.

Bruce Jensen

On Jul 24, 11:41 am, Anthony DeLorenzo <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Bruce Jensen said:

It sounds like the reporter was, anyway. It is very sad that the bear
was killed without haivng answered some questions. It seems like
there could have been another solution than the wild west variety
"shoot first" approach.

IMHO, RCMP made the right call to shoot the bear. At the time, they
probably couldn't be certain she was dead, and obviously the priority
was to save her life if at all possible. The bear was guarding the
kill and not letting them approach.

This was not clear from the story, although it is not an unreasonable
implication.

Quoted message said:

Look at it from the officer's perspective: The consequences of the
opposite scenario (woman bleeding to death while RCMP await a
conservation officer to tranquilize the bear) are far worse than
perhaps hastily shooting the bear.

Possibly true. Again, I wasn't there, so I cannot be sure.

Bruce Jensen