Polar Bear ended up dead because it tried to fucking kill somebody
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Polar bear shot and killed in self defense by cruise ship guard
- Thread starter FriskyCanuck
- Start date
We all do dangerous things. If they were not violating any norms or laws, then it means that the experts have determined that the benefits to the economy and preservation the bears from tourism outweigh the rare incident like this. The money communities get from tourism serve to drive poachers away. And tourist will be willing to pay way more to get up and personal vs just from a boat.
No he didn't, you obviously didn't read the article.
Oh I do agree that they shouldn't have gotten off the ship. But some people here are saying that they just wanted to get close to the polar bear and then it reacted, and thats not what happened. They had no idea it was there. It surprised the guard which I'm assuming is why the bear got a chance to do a bit of damage first, otherwise the gaurds would be injure free.
Edit:
I actually don't think there is any rule that you must stay on your ship. I did a search and just see that there is "some area restrictions" but not sure if this island was part of that
https://en.visitsvalbard.com/visitor-information/rules-of-svalbard-and-safety
Last edited:
No, it does not, not when there is a situation where humans are doing something they should not be doing. Humans (should) know better, animals are just trying to live their lives. Humans are not an endangered species.
Well, in my opinion random tourists don't need to be on such islands, thus not even creating the need for these guards or the death that happened here.
Why?
Ever met someone truly garbage? Would you save his life over an innocent animal?
They landed on a polar bear habitat with a gun ready to shoot a polar bear. That's literally what happened.
They're all going to end up there soon enough with the way things are going.
Maybe just observe from the damn ship opposed to docking on an island with polar bears.
Land places where they aren't and there's no threat to anyone.
I mean what a horrible person he shoot the poor cuddly bear that was only trying to eat a human. /s
Usually when you have two lives, and one is attacking another life trying to kill it... Usually what lifes want to do is preserve their lifes. Just so you know, this is how it usually works in the real world. So if a bear is attacking a human, you bet it is going to get shot.
Do you think killing a person in self defense is murder? Cause and effect. "How is it nonsense", really?
No. "Ensuring there are no polar bears" failed, obviously, as there was one.
Your assumption that the killing was originally planned is nonsense. If this were the case, where are all the other polar bear murders, anyway?
No, it ended up dead because idiots decided to go on it's island.
It doesn't matter to you that the human should not have been there?
As someone who spent months in the Canadian High Arctic doing climate change research... we carried shot guns with us at all times, because of polar bears. Thankfully we never saw a polar bar, but if we did and we could not get to our skidoo in time, we would have had to shoot one too. This is a sad story, but polar bears hunt people and if its coming after you... you have to shoot it. Sure we were in its territory, but that doesn't mean we deserve to be eaten lol, be reasonable.
I will say that I am not a huge fan of these kind of Arctic tours, but I do think its good for people to experience the Arctic and this is rare occurrence.
Of course they're willing to get up close, that's the problem. It's a business, and for profit ventures outweigh whatever the fuck is good for the environment or beings living in it.
But clearly they can dictate whatever rules they want when business has been booming in the last couple years
Last edited:
They have a gun for self defense. They aren't looking to murder the bears.
Like have you actually thought about this shit for a second? If you said was accurate the dude that got attacked would have shot the bear way before being attacked. He didn't even shoot the bear at all, his friend did after seeing him getting attacked.
This is a stupid characterization of the article. They went to ensure that there were no polar bears, which could mean if they saw one they would go back and inform the passengers not to disembark, but got attacked and had to defend themselves. Or it could mean they went to go kill it.
Either way, we're making assumptions to fit a narrative to stoke up controversy.
I mean, Polar Bears are everywhere in the damn arctic. Trying to avoid them is pretty hard at times. This is made harder by Polar Bears being stealth hunters so you usually don't see them until they're right on top of you trying to kill you.
Unless you want to get rid of all arctic tourism (which would be devastating to the economy and hurt the environment in many ways), you're never going to completely eliminate killing polar bears in self defense. It's simply something that is going to happen. What we can do as citizens to help the arctic ecosystem is lobby for a lottery system for tourism, attempt to create more animal habitats, reduce drilling and industrialization as much as possible, as well as taking steps against climate change. Getting mad at someone shooting a bear in self defense may feel good, but it doesn't do anything useful.
It's a tourist spot, people have visited this area before without any issue. The problem this time is a bear approached and attempted to eat them.
You're seriously arguing that a human life should've been taken because "they're so stupid, they deserve to die."
Sadly the article doesn't go on enough details, but they might very well be going to a populated town/settlement.
There are actual populated towns in these islands. Tourism is pretty important for them, and it's also pretty important to fund animal conservation.
There's no such thing as a "getting up close to a polar bear" experience being sold. This is not something that happened in this situation. The polar bear guards are literally hired to ensure the opposite.
If you can pay local kids $2000 to serve as tour guides for a big group a couple times a month and not resort to poaching, that is a net gain to the local environment. I cannot speak to Norway, but in Costa Rica, tourism massively helps in stopping poaching even if sometimes an endangered animal is killed here and there.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea that it's standard operating procedure and a requirement for this specific cruise ship shore excursion to have a 4 person "polar bear guard" detail. Maybe I'm out of touch, but my first thought is, don't do a shore excursion where you need a 4 person polar bear guard detail? I know cruise line companies are shady as fuck when it comes to their own liability (international ownership through multiple shell companies make it nearly impossible to litigate against them), but I'm surprised this excursion was even approved needing an armed 4 person guard team.
I guess i'll go tell the 2700+ people living in the archipelago some random person on the net told them they had to move.
I believe they are arguing a human life should have never been taken because a human should not be setting foot on an Island populated by a vulnerable species for the purposes of profit.
You do know it's possible to go to a place and not know an animal is in that location right? Like they were attacked because it surprised them or do you think that every single bear is tracked at all times and the island and since that was the nearest bear to their landing they went after it to kill it.
The bear was obviously killed on the beach. If they went there to shoot it, why not do it from the boat? Why even take a risk landing.
Guess I was out of line there, my bad. I am sorry I said this.
So, just because someone is human their life is more important than anything else? Morals, ethics, actions, etc. have nothing to do with it?
Would that mean that human life trumps even alien life (if we ever encounter it)?
I don't advocate for them to get killed!
I just think you could avoid situations like these with more caution and limiting yourself in the islands you visit or use for tourism. So there would be less need to keep areas clear of polar bears. =/
As you said, you were doing Climate Change research in a small group and weren't there as group of loud tourists with cameras. I can understand you having a way to defend yourself. You were going into hostile territory for a specific gain and not for amusement or entertainment. Your reason of being there is completely different to general tourism.
No way to fund this conservation without tourism? I don't think we need to live in every spot on this planet. =/
There are several populated towns in these islands
Tourism is one of their main ways substence
As for guns: you are required by law to have guns in certain areas.
Yes, yes, and yes. I don't give a shit if they're a "bad person" I'm not going to let somebody get eaten by a bear. The person isn't a monster because he showed up to a tourist spot. You're making some serious stretches to try to justify that someone should be murdered by an animal.
It is shockingly obvious you've never been outside much.
Seriously, go to Yellowstone or Glacier, or the arctic, and it becomes very clear just how dangerous bears can be. Polar bears especially so. Even taking every precaution, bad luck can have you end up dead.
The arrogance of someone telling people living in a place that has been populated since 1890 they should move "we can't live everywhere on the planet!".
I mean, I could post my "been outside" resume, but you'd just come up with some other non-sequitur deflection to make it okay for people to go shoot polar bears ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Well this thread is going down hill fast... faster, I guess?
It's not worth the effort. People have been saying this stuff throughout the thread and it just keeps getting ignored by posters who already have a predetermined version of the events cemented in their minds... Hell, look at the post right above this one. Some people in here are fully prepared to just ignore facts to fit their own narrative.
I wouldn't be sad if some of the worst criminals in human history died. I don't feel the need to preserve their life.
Though I understand that for general situations you want to preserve human life. I am just sad a polar bear died and think there might have been ways to avoid it. =(
And you can pull every stretch you can to say someone needs to die because you think they're dumb.
I didn't say there was. But people want naturally want to get as close as possible to things, hence getting off the boat. And no doubt people want to see polar bears. They have observing areas on the ship for observing them, according to the article.
I'm not saying they should stop tourism. I'm saying they shouldn't be getting off the boat. It states in the article that tourists can observe just fine from the ship itself.
So you're going to relocate 2600 people, forcefully remove them from their home?
That sounds almost sociopathic. Reminds me someone I knew who said the same about children eating poison.
I'd certainly rather see a polar bear live than see a group of tourists needlessly disembark onto an island to take selfies.
Strategically it makes sense sometimes. Would you continue to fund a town that only can sustain itself because you funnel money into it because it is located in an area generally not habitable for humans?
Not sure, I would need more information about literally anything to make an actual decision. Information like how their economy works, finances, resources, geography, etc. etc. . Just from such a small article I can't make a decision if I would consider moving a town to be better than keeping it.
Guess I get this feeling easier because I moved a lot in my life and don't really have a strong connection to the places I lived in. Sorry if it sounded too authoritarian with removing them so easily, etc. . =/
I swear if some of you actually took a moment to think how rare it is for this to actually happen that it gets covered by international news. Maybe just maybe you wouldn't post these stupid hyperbolic "Their killing all the bears" posts.
When your life is unquestionable in danger from a polar bear ripping you apart and trying to eat you, then yeah, its ok to save yourself and kill the polar bear.