• 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.

Gravidee

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,352
Humans just being humans defending themselves.
You'd let yourself get eaten? Nah right? Or are you going to prove me wrong.

Seriously. Some of these responses are just confusing me, like the folks that just post "fuck these assholes for killing the bear".

I mean, yeah it sucks that the bear had to die but the self righteousness that some of you carry with you is naive and aggravating. Just as the bear was being a bear, these guards were doing their job and protecting human life. They obviously weren't going to stand by and let the animal kill someone.
 

Deleted member 29682

User requested account closure
Banned
Nov 1, 2017
12,290
Do I think it is a bad idea for tourists to go into areas where apex predators can and will attack them? Yes. Better to save lies on all fronts, human or animal.

Does that mean I'd stand by and let said tourists get killed, had I the ability to save them? Fuck no. I'd advise them not to put themselves in danger again though.

But whatever, I guess we need our daily dose of misathropy.
 
Last edited:

floridaguy954

Member
Oct 29, 2017
3,631
Eh, I mean... we can replace polar bear guards. Would be wild if they didn't have any guns and just scarified themselves to save everyone else and also save polar bears. A true hero that'd be.

So you'd sit and watch another person get mauled and eaten by an endangered animal because "There's more people."?

Seriously, marrec, what the fuck are you talking about?

I have no patience for people who would willingly trade a human life for an animal life

I completely agree.
 

Westbahnhof

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
10,104
Austria
If you have to be accompanied by guns wielding "polar bear guards" to visit a place... Well, this could have been avoided but as long as there's money to be made, it's not a surprising result.
There is a town nearby that has "a requirement that any individuals venturing outside carry a rifle for protection against polar bears". So, I think that incidents like this will just happen very rarely, anyway.

And why can we not show the pic of the dead bear? This is reality, can't shy away from that..
People have weak stomachs for this kind of thing. I think they should be free to discuss without having to see the carcass. Of course, that's just nature. Simply image searching "polar bear seal" will show much more gruesome scenes.
 

dee_activate

Member
Oct 25, 2017
186
world
Nobody wants people to die, first off. Secondly this was not part of a conservation effort, this was a cruise ship, this doesn't seem like something that had to happen or a situation where the human's hand was forced, they could have not gotten into the Polar Bear habitat. They are a company operating for profit, I would feel differently if this was someone there helping with conservation, or even researching in order to refine conservation methods. It didn't ever have to come to a "one or the other" situation.

Every tourist has to pay a fee when they travel to Svalbard. This fee is added into the environment fund which is used for nature conservation and research projects for the management of tourism and protected areas of Svalbard. Svalbard got 60,000 tourists in 2015. That's a lot of money to help towards conservation and research. These tours have been happening for years, there is no law/rule that they could not get off the ship, if there was, the whole company would be fined, heavily.
 

Westbahnhof

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
10,104
Austria
What? Of course I value human life. That's why I'd mourn the loss of that life. What kind of sociopath do you think I am?
A massive one, tbh, if you feel that a person, with friends, family, and a human intelligence and personality, should be sacrificed. Even if the human is to blame, I view the human mind as beautiful. No idea how you could choose to sacrifice that.

Every tourist has to pay a fee when they travel to Svalbard. This fee is added into the environment fund which is used for nature conservation and research projects for the management of tourism and protected areas of Svalbard. Svalbard got 60,000 tourists in 2015. That's a lot of money to help towards conservation and research. These tours have been happening for years, there is no law/rule that they could not get off the ship, if there was, the whole company would be fined, heavily.
So these tours make loads of money for nature conservation and research? How many polar bears get shot during one trip, usually? I'll play dumb. Is it 0?
 

Kyuuji

The Favonius Fox
Member
Nov 8, 2017
31,901
Uhh... fucking duh. I'm in this thread advocating not shooting polar bears, I'm not here pretending I'd arm-wrestle one lmao
You claimed you wouldn't have shot a polar bear had you seen one mauling a human or had one chasing toward you. I was calling bullshit.
 

Branu

Banned
Feb 7, 2018
1,029
Humans just being humans defending themselves.
You'd let yourself get eaten? Nah right? Or are you going to prove me wrong.

I think we're an advanced enough society to come up with plenty of non-lethal forms of incapacitating an animal when it acts like an animal. No, I do not agree with them killing the polar bear.
 

RedMercury

Blue Venus
Member
Dec 24, 2017
17,635
Every tourist has to pay a fee when they travel to Svalbard. This fee is added into the environment fund which is used for nature conservation and research projects for the management of tourism and protected areas of Svalbard. Svalbard got 60,000 tourists in 2015. That's a lot of money to help towards conservation and research. These tours have been happening for years, there is no law/rule that they could not get off the ship, if there was, the whole company would be fined, heavily.
That is good information. They should look into making sure people aren't getting off the ships, and if that impacts the tourism they would have to find the money from somewhere else. The goal should be to leave no human footprint on the area that would have a negative impact on the wildlife.
 

Simon21

Member
Apr 25, 2018
1,134
Forgive me if I'm using faulty logic or if there is info out there I'm not aware of, but surely the fact this is news suggests this is a rare enough event that there's generally not actually that much danger of this happening? Don't see any evidence to suggest one polar bear being shot in self defence means these tours are cruising the arctic slaughtering them on the reg.
 

Westbahnhof

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
10,104
Austria
I already posted this, the last shooting was in 2011

link to stroy

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/aug/05/polar-bear-mauls-british-death

different tour though
Oh sorry, I missed it. So the average is very slightly higher than 0, hmmmm.
Sounds good to me.

Forgive me if I'm using faulty logic or if there is info out there I'm not aware of, but surely the fact this is news suggests this is a rare enough event that there's generally not actually that much danger of this happening? Don't see any evidence to suggest one polar bear being shot in self defence means these tours are cruising the arctic slaughtering them on the reg.
Pssst, look at the posts surrounding yours ;D
You're right.
 

Xe4

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,295
I think we're an advanced enough society to come up with plenty of non-lethal forms of incapacitating an animal when it acts like an animal. No, I do not agree with them killing the polar bear.
Not really. Not when it's in the process of attacking.

Sedating a bear takes time, bear spray only works sometimes and is notoriously ineffective against polar bears, warning shots only sometimes work, and didn't in this case. Playing dead or running away doesn't work on polar bears most of the time. They'll just try to eat you then.

Sometimes it's either you or the wildlife trying to kill you. Not that other methods shouldn't be employed first, but it's worth noting in this situation other methods were employed first, to no effect.

Forgive me if I'm using faulty logic or if there is info out there I'm not aware of, but surely the fact this is news suggests this is a rare enough event that there's generally not actually that much danger of this happening? Don't see any evidence to suggest one polar bear being shot in self defence means these tours are cruising the arctic slaughtering them on the reg.
Development on animal habitats such as drilling for oil as well as climate change affect bear populations more than tourism and the occasional bear shooting ever could by orders of magnitude. That's just not as exciting to talk about.

Of course, there are steps that can and should be taken to reduce tourists impact on the environment, such as lottery systems or restricted areas. That's a conversation worth having. But not on the premise that this is somehow the worst thing we're doing to the arctic or bear populations.
 
Last edited:

4859

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
7,046
In the weak and the wounded
Polar bear shot and killed in self defense

bear_with_gun_3_by_okeefeart.jpg
 

marrec

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
6,775
I mean the hypothetical for you to assert you wouldn't shoot assumes you have the option. Surely this is basic. Unless you're now saying that had you a gun you would?

If we're just imagining whatever wild thing you want then let's pretend I have a gun that can teleport the humans and myself back to the ship.

Cause that's just a plausible as me being a polar bear guard on a remote glacial island.
 

Chamaeleonx

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,348
Why the hell did a thread about a bear being shot in self defense turn into trying to understand the existential meaning of our existence

The poster asked a philosophical questions. Should I not answer?
Also, from incidents like these you can start amazing discussions about such deep topics and it feels more natural than just throw the question into someones face and they try to struggle to come up with an answer right the instant.

But many species are going extinct with or without our influence. Over 99% of all species have supposedly gone extinct in the past.
I feel we should always try to protect the environment, and including the megafauna, as well as we can. Because I enjoy the diversity, because I think it is good that these animals can live.
I don't view it as our burden, though. I don't understand how anyone could function like this either, since we are the biggest problem, right? Sounds like a breeding ground for misanthropy, like those weirdos who think humans should stop breeding and go extinct themselves.

Another thing is that we're actively trying to destroy certain living things. Parasites and bacteria, of course, but I just want to point out that obviously, we shouldn't preserve all endangered species.


Of course. I completely understand that we should avoid causing the extinction of most animals, but at the same time, I just want to point out that habitat changes and even extinction are natural. Not saying I don't care, though. Just something I think about when I look at nature.


It was either that, or risk the human getting killed for being a human, right?

Of course many species have gone extinct and more will in the future. But doesn't it sound logical that we try our best to prevent it or lower it? Even if it is just for our own interest in keeping the diversity alive because we like to admire it. I don't consider this to be a worthless goal to have for humanity.
I wouldn't consider it a "burden", even if you would, it still could turn into something positive. You don't have to consider it a negative "burden", others might consider it an honor even. Just like some consider family a burden while others take great joy in it. How you function like this? Just normal I would imagine. You don't have to entangle yourself in your views too much and keep some realism in your mind while keeping your own position in society in mind.
We are the biggest problem even if we have, by the basic laws of nature, the right to do all we do as we are the apex predator on this planet. Though in my opinion our intelligence and knowledge about this world should give us the motivation to achieve the goal I mentioned before. Even if you construe it as us taking control of the world, lifting our-self up to higher status and "playing god" so to speak. Guess I am viewing it from a more benevolent angle here.

Destroying Bacteria and Parasites, I would keep a few alive for the future and the use they might have. But I am aware that this is clearly human judgement and decision making as we consider these two types negative to our world despite all life being equal by basic definition.

Even if they are natural, we should still try to fight it with all options available to us. If you would turn the view on humanity then you would do the same, because you belong to the same species. I think we should try our best to achieve the same for other species as well.
 

chandoog

Member
Oct 27, 2017
20,071
Some of the responses of people counting human population vs bear population are incredibly bizarre..

These were not hunters, the bear was shot to avoid human casualties.

Human lives > Bear lives.
 

marrec

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
6,775
A massive one, tbh, if you feel that a person, with friends, family, and a human intelligence and personality, should be sacrificed. Even if the human is to blame, I view the human mind as beautiful. No idea how you could choose to sacrifice that.
They chose to explore an area that could kill them, it's not on me.
 

Xe4

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,295
They chose to explore an area that could kill them, it's not on me.
My aunt and my mother and father, have all had close run ins with bears that could have very well ended with them dead.

If they were mauled, I guess your response would be "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" then, huh?

I think the poster thinks about stuff like a taser, we use these things for the police for example. I am sure you can make equal options available for the bear guards.
No taser known to man will stop a 1 ton charging hungry bear.

Bear spray will sometimes work, but there will be situations where it doesn't and your options are the bear dying or you dying.
 

Kyuuji

The Favonius Fox
Member
Nov 8, 2017
31,901
If we're just imagining whatever wild thing you want then let's pretend I have a gun that can teleport the humans and myself back to the ship. Cause that's just a plausible as me being a polar bear guard on a remote glacial island.
You claimed you wouldn't shoot the bear in similar circumstances, so I'll ask you point blank:

If you had a gun and saw a polar bear either mauling another human being or charging you, would you shoot it?

Your dodging of the question and earlier post makes it seem like the answer would be an emphatic yes.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,023
What? Of course I value human life. That's why I'd mourn the loss of that life. What kind of sociopath do you think I am?
I mean, you said "Eh, I mean... we can replace polar bear guards" in response to someone saying "I feel bad the polar bear died but I don't think the alternative of letting it feast on the polar bear guard is ok either. I'm fine with people killing an animal that is trying to kill them or another person and a polar bear is VERY capable of that." so I'd say a pretty big one tbh.
 

Westbahnhof

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
10,104
Austria
They chose to explore an area that could kill them, it's not on me.
See? Total disregard for a human who could be saved. You prefer to sacrifice them. Do you think the people knew they could be killed?

Of course many species have gone extinct and more will in the future. But doesn't it sound logical that we try our best to prevent it or lower it? Even if it is just for our own interest in keeping the diversity alive because we like to admire it. I don't consider this to be a worthless goal to have for humanity.
I wouldn't consider it a "burden", even if you would, it still could turn into something positive. You don't have to consider it a negative "burden", others might consider it an honor even. Just like some consider family a burden while others take great joy in it. How you function like this? Just normal I would imagine. You don't have to entangle yourself in your views too much and keep some realism in your mind while keeping your own position in society in mind.
We are the biggest problem even if we have, by the basic laws of nature, the right to do all we do as we are the apex predator on this planet. Though in my opinion our intelligence and knowledge about this world should give us the motivation to achieve the goal I mentioned before. Even if you construe it as us taking control of the world, lifting our-self up to higher status and "playing god" so to speak. Guess I am viewing it from a more benevolent angle here.

Destroying Bacteria and Parasites, I would keep a few alive for the future and the use they might have. But I am aware that this is clearly human judgement and decision making as we consider these two types negative to our world despite all life being equal by basic definition.

Even if they are natural, we should still try to fight it with all options available to us. If you would turn the view on humanity then you would do the same, because you belong to the same species. I think we should try our best to achieve the same for other species as well.
I think this is a topic for another thread, but while we don't agree, I think that we could agree, with enough discussion about the exact circumstances and when humans should and shouldn't intervene.

In any case, some parasites need to be wiped out, absolutely. Look at this fellow, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dracunculiasis
That's some good eradicating right there.
Guinea_worm.png



I think the poster thinks about stuff like a taser, we use these things for the police for example. I am sure you can make equal options available for the bear guards.
I doubt there is any reliable option like this for a charging polar bear.
 

gutter_trash

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
17,124
Montreal
I already posted this, the last shooting was in 2011

link to stroy

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/aug/05/polar-bear-mauls-british-death

different tour though
Pro-tip, don't go adventuring in bear territory.

Seeing the warped realities some people live in where it's worth it to let a bear kill a human is super interesting.
facepalm
Some of the responses of people counting human population vs bear population are incredibly bizarre..

These were not hunters, the bear was shot to avoid human casualties.

Human lives > Bear lives.
This planet is so doomed with posts like these.
 

chandoog

Member
Oct 27, 2017
20,071
I think the poster thinks about stuff like a taser, we use these things for the police for example. I am sure you can make equal options available for the bear guards.

Tasers don't often work on aggressive human beings, it's very safe to assume equivalent things might also not work on aggressive charging bears.
 

Deleted member 29682

User requested account closure
Banned
Nov 1, 2017
12,290
Tranquilize it, perhaps?

The issue with tranquilising is that it isn't an instant effect, and often agitates or enrages the animal. Not the ideal outcome if it's already close enough to be a threat.

I think the only feasible option that prevents bloodshed on either side is to stay clear of them, either by comprehensive tracking of polar bears (which would also be of interest to scientists) or just not allowing tourists into such environments.
 

Branu

Banned
Feb 7, 2018
1,029
Didn't we have this whole thing when Harambe was shot? Tranquilizers need to have the correct dosage and some time to work.
I don't think it's something that you'd want to rely on in an emergency situation like this.

I guess that's what I meant when I said we've made enough advances in science and technology that there must be some means of safely and immediately incapacitating a dangerous animal without killing it, especially one whose habitat we've invaded.
 

dee_activate

Member
Oct 25, 2017
186
world
I think the poster thinks about stuff like a taser, we use these things for the police for example. I am sure you can make equal options available for the bear guards.

Here is the safety document for tourism rules in Svalbard, it states what you can do to help prevent polar bear attacks.

https://www.sysselmannen.no/globala.../english/brochures/safety-in-svalbard-eng.pdf

but this time the guards did not see the bear, there was no time to react and the bear was already attacking 1 guard. unfortunately all other measures would have been too slow.

Also it is required by law to carry a gun in such remote areas, or have a guide with a gun. This also applies in the north of Norway, not just Svalbard
 

Chamaeleonx

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,348
See? Total disregard for a human who could be saved. You prefer to sacrifice them. Do you think the people knew they could be killed?


I think this is a topic for another thread, but while we don't agree, I think that we could agree, with enough discussion about the exact circumstances and when humans should and shouldn't intervene.

In any case, some parasites need to be wiped out, absolutely. Look at this fellow, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dracunculiasis
That's some good eradicating right there.
Guinea_worm.png
Obviously my point regarding the keeping of some parasites was focused on scientific value. It can have value to keep them around for the future as we might need them, something they provide, a mechanism, genes, or whatever else. Naturally they shouldn't be a danger outside anymore.

Surely we could, though there is a lot of discussion to be had. I already know that my viewpoint is controversial and not what the general person would think. =P

... do you just not leave your house?
He already answered that he camps regularly, please read the thread.

They chose to shot the bear who was about to harm/kill them, saving their lives was not on you either thankfully.
For sure they did. I guess the argument is that they were at the wrong place for this situation to happen in the first place. Others argued that the tourism is needed, which is understandable due to the facts presented. Leaves the point of giving tourists access to high, or at least higher than normal, danger areas and how the removal of said access would impact the economy benefiting from it. Maybe it is enough to have a view from a point far away then to offer actual landing, who knows. *shrug*
Personally, I mentioned this before, I am just sad the polar died.

If you had a gun and saw a polar bear either mauling another human being or charging you, would you shoot it?
Not addressed at me but I consider this a difficult example where everybody would react differently. Some might shoot, some might run, there is the factor of closeness to the one being mauled, etc. .
Personally I wouldn't even know how to operate the gun and probably try to run and thus probably die. xD
 

Westbahnhof

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
10,104
Austria
Here is the safety document for tourism rules in Svalbard, it states what you can do to help prevent polar bear attacks.

https://www.sysselmannen.no/globala.../english/brochures/safety-in-svalbard-eng.pdf

but this time the guards did not see the bear, there was no time to react and the bear was already attacking 1 guard. unfortunately all other measures would have been too slow.

Also it is required by law to carry a gun in such remote areas, or have a guide with a gun. This also applies in the north of Norway, not just Svalbard
Just to quote it for people here:

Polar bears are unconditionally protected.
The polar bear spends most of its life on sea ice and in the sea, but can also be encountered all over the archipelago, all year round. Adult males usually weigh in at about 300-600 kilos, with females up to about half of that. The polar bear feeds mainly on seals that it catches on the ice.

If you run into a polar bear, you should react as follows:
1. If you see a polar bear, you must not under any circumstances approach the animal.
2. If the polar bear follows you and you have no way of escaping, you need to try to scare it off. Keep the group together and make as much noise as possible. Act confident, and use the intimidation measures you have. Start using intimidation measures from a distance of at least 200 meters. Make sure you place flares in front of a polar bear that is heading towards you.
3. If the polar bear is not frightened off, and the situation escalates in such a way that it may be fatal, you need to prepare for putting the animal down.
4. Select a point or line in the terrain and decide to fire if the bear crosses this point. You should aim for vital areas such as the heart or lungs (shoulder) if possible. Keep firing until you are certain that the animal is dead.

The polar bear is a protected animal, and can only be killed in an emergency situation if there is no other way to save human life or prevent injuries. If you have killed or shot at a polar bear, you must immediately report the incident to the Governor. There will always be an investigation after a polar bear has been killed or fired at.

Rabies exists in Svalbard, so dead animals must not be touched. Avoid animals that are acting strangely, are especially aggressive, social or show signs of disease. Such animals must be reported to the Governor