And I'd rather see someone live through a tourist trip than being mauled by a bear.
There are also villages full of people who live in those areas, do they deserve to die as well?
-
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.
Polar bear shot and killed in self defense by cruise ship guard
- Thread starter FriskyCanuck
- Start date
There are also villages full of people who live in those areas, do they deserve to die as well?
Like someone said (I hope this is true), it's a community that has been around since 1890.
Can I ask where you are from? You attitude seems very different from anything I've encountered before. Sorry if I came across harsh, but I think these people have a right to remain in that area.
I'm all for not unnecessarily antagonizing wild animals but it's easy to live a sheltered lifestyle and make accusations without seeing the full picture(put yourself in the tour guides shoes and think about having to make a living by doing something that requires you being put in potential danger). This wasn't a bear killed for sport, it was out of self-defense
To be fair, I think polar bears have been living there longer than 130 years and humans aren't going to become an endangered species any time soon.
I advise you to read the wikipedia article for Longyearbien. It's a fascinating read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longyearbyen .
Tourism has helped the town being kept alive after many of the mining operations having been relocated.
Apologies for the incomplete post. I accidentally fingered the post button.
Real question, have you ever run across a bear in the wild? Even something as usually harmless as a black bear is a very bad place to be in. Polar Bear encounters are very often life and death situations, even when you're doing everything possible to prevent attack. You blaming the people for almost being mauled by a bear comes off as some sort of perverse victim blaming to be honest.
Nobody got intentionally close to the bear in this situation. Nobody wanted the bear to die here. Sometimes though it is literally a situation where you die or the bear does, despite any efforts otherwise. For you to constantly deny this comes off as either completely ignorant of bear behavior or as gross for wanting the people to die for a random surprise attack.
And for hikers, island kayakers, campers and backpackers? The island isn't just toured by arctic cruises. Nobody on the boat went to get a closer look at the bear. they went to get a closer look at the island in general. The fact that they ran into the bear was unfortunate but it's what will sometimes happen on a hike in the wilderness. And when it does you need to be prepared to a.) Do everything possible to save yourself, and others b.) Do everything possible to avoid harming wildlife, including the bear.
As far as I'm concerned those running the tour did both of those things.
Last edited:
Do those people tromp about in polar bear territory? Or do they scrape a living by in this remote area that's practically uninhabitable without bothering the wildlife?
My answer depends on this.
I'm not aware of what the situation is there but if their living there is detrimental to a vulnerable species their Government should offer them money to relocate, tell anyone that chooses to stay there that conservation efforts will become the priority in the area and any local acting in contrast to those efforts will be either fined or jailed.
Last edited:
Agreed. The last time this happened in Svalbard was in 2011 when a polar bear attacked a camp.
Are you going to apply this for all countries with such species? And Norway already does charge and fine people who hunt bears. They investigate each case. If it is a clear, no question, life saving act, then the person will not be fined or charged.
Last edited:
"Because of the town's remoteness, there are laws in place that are found in few, if any, other places in the world. Notable examples of such laws include a ban on cats, a restriction on how much alcohol an individual can purchase on a monthly basis, and a requirement that any individuals venturing outside carry a rifle for protection against polar bears."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longyearbyen
Hey maybe it was a jerk polar bear that all the other polar bears hated and were glad he got shot. Really makes you think.
Your question shouldn't depend on anything. It's not a yes or no question. The answer is no, a village of people don't deserve to die because they live near bears.
I saw it from a government standpoint, where situations can arise that make it a better solution to move a village or town then to try and keep it there while it wastes away and resources get wasted. It sounds bad but sometimes it is necessary to move people to achieve bigger goals, etc. .
I am from Europe, why do you ask? Not sure how it matters. Me saying "I moved a lot" comes down to me having moved like 6+ times (don't remember the exact number) in 18/19 years as a child. So I kinda have less attachment to the places where I live. Certainly I understand that people naturally get attached to the place they live in, I believe it has a positive effect in a psychological sense as well. Though I would understand if you have to due to reasons higher then yourself that are well reasoned and not based on religion or something like that. A good reason would be climate change for example, as some areas simply become inhabitable even if you could use money to keep people living there it would make little sense outside of more important reasons like research, resources, etc. .
First bear shoot in 7 years cause what do you know humans and nature can cohabitate. One bear gets shot in self defense and you got people almost saying they wish the person was dead and the whole community should be removed from the islands.
I don't even...
As a Norwegian sorry but that is very offensive to me.
I don't even...
As a Norwegian sorry but that is very offensive to me.
What kind of solution is this? "We're sorry, the bears are more important than you. Fuck off to somewhere else."
I asked because I was curious, in my head, understanding that people don't want to be moved from a place that they consider home is just normal, and something that is usually deeply respected.
That's the main problem with any "just close it down" mentality.
I wonder if the people basically saying the guy should have just let himself be eaten would be saying the same if it were their family member, child or partner being eaten alive? I'd venture a guess they'd not sit there and do nothing whilst hearing the agony of their dying loved one.
Just because you have no emotional attachment to this guard shouldn't mean you discard the value of his life.
Yes, the bear was just being a bear and encroachment on their territory whilst they're struggling to find food is foolhardy, but no, they don't deserve to be eaten alive.
Just because you have no emotional attachment to this guard shouldn't mean you discard the value of his life.
Yes, the bear was just being a bear and encroachment on their territory whilst they're struggling to find food is foolhardy, but no, they don't deserve to be eaten alive.
Real answer, I've been outdoorsy my whole life. Been camping every summer since I joined the cub scouts when I was a wee little marrec. One of the recurring themes during my camping trips was being aware that you are in a place where you can end up hurt or dead if you don't act accordingly. The Scout Master didn't carry a gun, and now that I camp as an adult I don't carry a gun. I do a lot of research beforehand to make sure I'm aware of local flora and fauna and if it's a bear area I carry bear mace and make sure to secure my food.
I camp because I love the outdoors, but camping is inherently dangerous and I'm aware of the danger and gladly accept it in order to get out and see the wild. Even now I follow the mantra, "take only photographs, leave only footprints". It IS possible to enjoy nature while putting both yourself and wildlife in minimal danger.
Disembarking on a beach in an area known to have polar bears is the opposite of enjoying nature while putting both yourself and wildlife in minimal danger.
I'd hope none of my family members would be callous enough to become a "polar bear guard" and I know for 100% certainty that my partner would leave me in an instant if I were to become one and would also expect me to let her get eaten by a bear rather than have me shoot one.
That is the thing. Another poster "called me out" or rather mentioned it already. But I would probably relocate people in the USA as well if some of these old mining towns simply don't make sense anymore to funnel money into as their resources are completely drained. I can understand wanting to keep human settlements there for various reasons, but I am not totally against moving population to help them and make them useful for your society (giving them access to healthcare, education, employment, etc.).
Well, such old villages can have a rustic charm for sure though. =)
Might check out your link later, thank you for providing me with the information. =)
Especially since forced relocation isn't a method advocated by any arctic ecologists as far as I know. There are much better ways to help bear populations than telling an entire town to screw off.
Sure, the government should totally have the right to kick you out of your home if they have an interest in using your land for something different.
That sounds crazy and dangerous to me.
Also, let me quote this:
Because I view this post as important.
That would never work well. You try to build businesses in places that are suffering not take it away. Turning towns into ghost towns isn't the way to go about things.
Also even in modern society we are always at risk of displacing or eliminating other species just by spreading our population. Everyone on this board lives somewhere that was likely initially a land where some animals lived on. It was cleared and raised just so we could have our homes built on it.
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.
In some cases, yes, this is true. One of our duties as human beings is to take care of our planet, this includes preserving endangered species. It is likely entirely within the power of their Government to help move an offer compensation and employment to less than 3,000 individuals. They don't have to starve, they aren't going to be hunted, humans can acclimate to a variety of habitats, Polar Bears and other endangered animals do not have that luxury. It is much easier to move people than it is to move an animal.
Yeh, this thread is giving me an aneurysm.
The guards are not at fault here, they did what they had to.
Blame the company that scheduled the tour to go on the island endangering the passengers (and the animals) as a result.
Thank you for the response. I think we're disagreeing because different areas carry different dangers. Somewhere where only black bears exist is generally fine to travel unprepared for an attack. As long as you're cautious and don't do something dumb like surprise the bear or approach the best or feed the bear (or leave food in the tent), you should be fine. Exceptions occur of course, like if it's a mama bear with cubs or the bear has rabies, but generally as long as you're careful you should be fine. Even still, if a black bear tried to maul someone I'd be fine with them fatally shooting it, even if you're in black bear territory.
Up further north, say in Yellowstone you have to be a lot more careful due to grizzly bears. Bear spray is a requirement, as are bear proof food containers. Even then the bears will sometimes attack you. Bear spray works sometimes, but not always and sometimes people are mauled to death because they got unlucky.
In the arctic with polar bears, guns are required, full stop. I haven't heard of a single arctic trip that didn't involve someone at least bringing a shotgun. Shoot, my aunt nearly had to kill a grizzly bear while on a rafting trip in Alaska. The bear was in her camp and she had the bear spray and shotgun in her hands and was fully prepared to use one, then the other. Luckily it wandered off, but it very well could have decided to charge her. Should she have been mauled cause she was in polar bear and grizzly bear territory?
Polar bear reputation is exaggerated to be sure, but they're still extremely unpredictable and dangerous. Unlike other bears they don't avoid humans and will stalk prey, including people, for miles. A situation can go from ok to deadly in seconds and you have to be prepared for that, including having the ability to kill the bear if nessesary.
It's not a matter of avoiding places where polar bears are, cause polar bear territory in the arctic is massive. After a certain latitude you simply have to be prepared to expect polar bears and understand how to deal with them. In that respect it doesn't really matter what island they landed on, the chance of a bear attack is always there.
Last edited:
Sorry to get philosophical here, but... is it? Why? I mean, I think we should, but I don't see where this sense of duty comes from.
Always a difficult comparison to make as I would not put my family into such danger. The general course of action would logically be to defend your family and kill the attacker. But for me personally it is difficult to get the comparison working as I, as mentioned at the start, would not put my family into such dangerous situations.
No emotional attachment means that people will discard the life of others easier, that is simply how the mind works most of the time. You may feel a tinge of sadness but not much above it for people that are really removed from you.
For some reason this reminds me of the Anime Yuru Camp (being an Anime about camping). Sounds like you have a good policy going, keep it up! =)
I understand that, my attachment is simply less due to how I grew up and matured in an emotional way. Growing up it was obvious that we would soon move again, therefore the attachment is less.
Personally I would respect it to a certain degree, which also depends on my position in the dialog this respect would get mentioned or appealed to. If my position in the hierarchy is higher then I maybe would reduce the weight I give to such sentiments as I have to think about more important and bigger goals then a family that is attached to their long standing home. At the same time I can understand, for example, elderly people that have lived in the same house for decades and have emotional attachment to it, thus finding it difficult to move out of the known environment.
In the end each situation would be different and I would have to re-evaluate it each time I would encounter such a situation.
Thus, to go back to my original point, I would need more information here if it is reasonable to keep a town running.
By the way, I mentioned this in another post in this thread, but I would consider moving some USA mining, struggling or almost deserted towns due to it not being logical to keep them where they are. It would be sad and emotional for those living there but some problems can't be fixed no matter what you try due to the location simply being totally against you. Same goes for the problems Japan faces with some rural villages. It always sounds heartless if you talk about it in such a statistical viewpoint and it seems you ignore the feelings of every single resident that lives in these small settlements, but sometimes you have to ignore these emotions as someone working in government and working towards a better goal. =/
I believe we will see this more and more that some areas will get reclaimed by nature as the years go by because people concentrate in specific areas.
We, as intelligent living beings, should make this our goal for the whole universe. If we strife to higher heights, to accomplish more and more we shouldn't loose sight of the others as our intelligence gives us the means to achieve a good life for them as well.
I guess it comes from intelligence or being the most intelligent being on this planet and, as far as we currently know, the whole universe. Intelligence, knowledge should make it logical to take such a stance and look out for others just like we look out for the weaker ones of our own species and have developed so many technologies to aid them in their daily life's.
This is one of the most amazing threads ever. It's just sad that a polar bear had to die for it to exist in the first place.
Going by the logic of some of you guys then humans should never be allowed to kill any sort of animal in self defense no matter where you are, in the wild or otherwise. That would be some hard times for anyone living in any any sort of rural area out in the country.
Going by the logic of some of you guys then humans should never be allowed to kill any sort of animal in self defense no matter where you are, in the wild or otherwise. That would be some hard times for anyone living in any any sort of rural area out in the country.
I think there's a bit of a difference in terms of potential danger or appearance of threat to wildlife between hundreds of people arriving on a massive cruise ship who have no idea what's going on led by armed guards and people hiking, kayaking or backpacking on the island.
Do you honestly think seeing a polar bear up close is not directly tied into wanting to explore the island.. For tourists? They have observation areas on the ship itself just for people who want to see them. No, it's not the literal reason why people disembarked, but it's surely a large part of the appeal of wanting to explore.
Like I said, it makes far more sense to just observe from a distance, since they already have the capability of providing it on the ship. If no one got off the ship, dude doesn't get head swiped and polar bear is alive.
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
For me, it's because animals do not bear any responsibility for deforestation, pollution, overfishing, destroying habitats, et cetera
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?
Humans just being humans defending themselves.
You'd let yourself get eaten? Nah right? Or are you going to prove me wrong.
Humans just being humans trying to make some $$$, it was a cruise ship, not Greenpeace.
Alternatively:
1) Mourn the unfortunate loss of human life due to them wandering around a polar bears home
2) Take steps to protect the polar bears by restricting future foot traffic through the region
I get that the people should really not be tourists there in the first place, but those getting mad at the guard for killing the Bear in self defense need to check their priorities.
Out with it. Do you hate humans? I get being critical of human actions, I get hating some human practices, but you seem like you just don't value human life.
I probably would too, but I'd still blame the human for getting themselves in th situation in the first place.