Bear attack

[Ewker]

Preliminary test results fail to confirm bear was killer


By DUNCAN MANSFIELD
Associated Press Writer

<!--ARTICLE BODY TEXT-->KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- Preliminary results from a forensic examination failed to establish a captured black bear was responsible for the death of a 6-year-old girl and injuries to her mother and brother, officials said Tuesday.
Tissue and hair samples collected from a necropsy completed Monday at the University of Tennessee Veterinary School will undergo further tests.
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=305 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD><TD width=10 rowSpan=3></TD></TR><TR><TD><CENTER></CENTER></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Meanwhile, trapping will continue around the Cherokee National Forest swimming hole in southeast Tennessee where Elora Petrasek of Clyde, Ohio, was fatally mauled and her mother, Susan Cenkus, 45, and 2-year-old brother Luke Cenkus were injured in the bear attack April 13.

"No obvious evidence was detected during the necropsy ... to positively identify the bear as the one that attacked the Ohio family last Thursday afternoon," the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency said in a statement.

The suspected male bear was captured three days after the attack not far from the swimming hole.

Tests showed the bear, which was euthanized, did not have rabies.

The bear weighed 203 pounds, slightly above average for a grown male, according to experts.

Overall, the bear was in "good condition for a bear coming out of hibernation," TWRA spokesman Don King said. "There were good fat deposits within the muscles, which would indicate a healthy animal. It wasn't emaciated or starving to death."

An examination of the bear's digestive system found no evidence of human remains or clothing, UT spokeswoman Sandra Harbison said. Pathologist Robert Donnell said Monday before the exam that too much time may have elapsed since the attack to find such traces.

However, tissue samples were being sent off for further study in search of human DNA.

Also, additional studies to match the bear's DNA on fur samples collected from the victims and in the attack area were planned.

Bob Miller, spokesman for Great Smoky Mountains National Park, which borders the Cherokee National Forest, said DNA testing can take a while. "This isn't like sending it off to Fotomat," he said.

Donnell said Monday that DNA testing could take seven to 10 days, and microscopic analysis could take four to six weeks.

Meanwhile, authorities aren't sure if they caught and killed the right bear.

"We won't know conclusively for a number of days," King said Tuesday. "We are doing our best to get the samples to the proper places and allow them to do their testing on the materials."

A second bear caught Tuesday in the traps baited with doughnuts and honey buns is being held alive until all the test results are back on the first bear, the TWRA said

"We are in the process of removing all traps except those in the immediate vicinity of the attack," said Les Jones, TWRA area supervisor.

The attack was only second fatal black bear attack in Tennessee in modern times -- a woman day hiking in the Smokies was killed in 2000 -- and only the 56th in the past 100 years in North America, officials said.

Officials suspect the bear that mauled the Ohio family was hungry, just waking from winter hibernation, and looking for food. They called it a likely predatory attack, not the result of some provocation by the victims.

Dr. Joe Clark, a research ecologist and bear expert with the U.S. Geological Survey, said, "Bears are large powerful wild animals and they do things that wild animals will do."

However, he said, "This is a very rare thing. I would hate for one animal to give the whole species a bad name. These things happen."

[ed bell]

6.The adults were not prepared to deal with the assault because of peer
pressure and denial.They and their friends do not condone firearms on the trail(nor do I for that matter) and they did not have anything else,like BEARSPRAY, to use because they were afraid they would be laughed at by their peers. They used sticks and threw a few rocks which was all they could find to use once the emergency presented itself.
OFT

With all due respect OFT, since you were not there and have not cited a report backing these statements up, I would reserve this type of judgement for some other time. I recognize the importance of learning strategies to deal with potentially fatal situations, but lets stick to the real facts here. My condolences to the family in this difficult time.

[JLB]

Sick person...

Panzer

No, smart person.

Let's go over the facts again:

The bear attacked,a human, even though most of the people on this board insist that they never attack us.

The bear killed a little girl, and mauled a little boy, when the tactics espoused by the gun-haters on this board were used. (The bear is more scared of you, pick up a rock or stick, blah blah blah...)

The bear attack was stopped when a firearm was employed. (The smart approach)

Thanks to a culture that refuses to take responsibility for self defense, and insists on avoiding the real possibilities of a wild animal or human attack, a little girl is dead, a little boy is mauled, and a bear (now maybe two) will be hunted down and killed.

If saner heads had prevailed, that woman would have been armed, and her children would be alive. A warning shot may have deterred the bear, or a killing shot would have saved the girls life, and the life of the innocent bear that I now hear has been killed by mistake.

No armed hiker has ever killed another hiker on the AT, either intentionally, or by mistake, yet you people are more scared of the inanimate object than the big hairy predator, who has millions of years of evolution and instinct teling it to actually act like a bear....and hunt.

Yes, I know bears are omnivores, but those canines are not just for show. Just ask the "Bear Whisperer" AKA "Grizzly Man" how sweet and misunderstood bears are. I doubt you will get much of a response from him, as he is now bear scat, thanks to his "friends". You could ask his gullible girlfriend too, but will get the same reply. (Yes, I know black bears and grizzlies are different. Black bears attack more often.)

Just look at the statistics, and you will see that bear attacks have risen in each of the last 5 decades.

The number of bear attacks in North America has gone up in the past 50 years, mostly, says Herrero, because more and more people are working, camping, and hiking in what was their turf for many years. Ten people were killed in the 1950s, 14 in the '60s, 22 in the '70s, 27 in the '80s, 29 in the '90s

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/sc...tters.attacks/

Last time I checked, bears still act like bears, can't read maps to tell if they are on the AT or not, and occasionally attack people.

Cougars also act like cougars, and wild dogs suprisingly act like wild dogs.

Rapists and murderers also seem to still be around, and shouting and banging pans together seems to have no effect on them.

As somebody who hikes with my year old son, pictured here:
http://www.fototime.com/{D8AC9CF2-F9...F}/picture.JPG

and here:
http://www.fototime.com/{6902E9A1-11...6}/picture.JPG


He would be seen as easy prey to a carnivore preparing for, or coming out of hibernation, I choose to be a good parent and father, and do everything in my power to make sure he comes home un-mauled after enjoying the woods. The prescence of a firearm, as a last resort, has absolutely zero impact on the trail, or my fellow hikers, or the peaceful wildlife.

[KirkMcquest]

Sorry folks,I just had to weigh in on why Mr Bear attacked.
1.He is a predator
2.He was hungry as it is still early in the spring
3.He may have felt threatened by the people
4.He attacked the children because they were small and easy(see
reason # 1)
5.He succeeded because the other mature adult homosapiens were not
prepared to deal with his assault-even though such assaults are admittedly very very rare.
6.The adults were not prepared to deal with the assault because of peer
pressure and denial.They and their friends do not condone firearms on the trail(nor do I for that matter) and they did not have anything else,like BEARSPRAY, to use because they were afraid they would be laughed at by their peers. They used sticks and threw a few rocks which was all they could find to use once the emergency presented itself.
7.Because they forgot the Boyscout rule and were unprepared a beautiful
little child is dead,her brother is seriously injured, and the mother will be
traumatized for the rest of her days.
8.Now we are all very sad that it happened but the fact will now and forever remain-it did.
OFT

..........here,here!

[Blue Jay]

Yes, I know black bears and grizzlies are different. Black bears attack more often.[/QUOTE]

This is pure BS, where did you come up with this. I could care less if you carry a gun or whatever it takes to keep you out from under your bed. The simple fact is that the bear was being harassed prior to the attack. Another group has admitted to doing so. The simple fact is a gun was not needed just some simple intelligence. Adding one more danger to a group of fools does not help anything.

[generoll]

BJ, what is the source of that charge? Please provide a reference.

[KirkMcquest]

Sounds like alot of BS.

[Pacific Tortuga]

[quote=JLB]No, smart person.

Let's go over the facts again:

The bear attacked,a human, even though most of the people on this board insist that they never attack us.

The bear killed a little girl, and mauled a little boy, when the tactics espoused by the gun-haters on this board were used. (The bear is more scared of you, pick up a rock or stick, blah blah blah...)

Gun-haters, my bass just hope you didn't go to the 'Cheney School of Shooting' and not wing me.... make it a clean shot.

[KirkMcquest]

I don't know why all the fear about guns. A gun is a tool like any other. For those of you that hate guns out there, the implication seems to be that human beings on the whole, are not responsible or intelligent enough to be trusted with a gun. You'd rather have all the power to defend us rest in the hands of someone else, who most likely won't be around when you need them. Pacific T is 100% correct, had those people been carrying a fire arm (with a little know-how), this tragedy would likely have been avoided.

Guns are a tool. People will do bad things in the world with or without them. In regards to thru-hiking, though, I can't see carrying the extra weight of a firearm. A little bear spray is extremely light, effective, and even better, non-lethal.

[ed bell]

To those who carry weapons to defend themselves in the woods I say good for you. For those who carry bearspray, good for you. For those of you who rely on these measures as your best defence against a bear encounter, educate yourselves in proven strategies to avoid problem situations. Only then will you truly have a complete strategy in place. IMHO if you have to use the weapon or spray to protect yourself against a bear, then you have failed to take measures to avoid the confrontation in the first place. This is of course in regards to East Coast black bear territory.

Just look at the statistics, and you will see that bear attacks have risen in each of the last 5 decades.

I clicked on the link after this comment and it hardly made me feel more vulnerable today than back in 1981 in regards to black bear attacks. Considering that the figure is in regards to all bear attacks in all of North America, I would say it actually makes me feel less vulnerable. People often talk about how safe they feel in their small town, the AT is WAY more safe than that. Too much grandstanding going on about something that is about a personal comfort zone.

[KirkMcquest]

To those who carry weapons to defend themselves in the woods I say good for you. For those who carry bearspray, good for you. For those of you who rely on these measures as your best defence against a bear encounter, educate yourselves in proven strategies to avoid problem situations. Only then will you truly have a complete strategy in place. IMHO if you have to use the weapon or spray to protect yourself against a bear, then you have failed to take measures to avoid the confrontation in the first place. This is of course in regards to East Coast black bear territory. I clicked on the link after this comment and it hardly made me feel more vulnerable today than back in 1981 in regards to black bear attacks. Considering that the figure is in regards to all bear attacks in all of North America, I would say it actually makes me feel less vulnerable. People often talk about how safe they feel in their small town, the AT is WAY more safe than that. Too much grandstanding going on about something that is about a personal comfort zone.

Ed I agree with you 80%. Although how you choose to defend yourself is your choice, I don't think that its strictly a 'personal comfort zone'. What feels comfortable may not be effective, feeling safe has nothing to do with BEING safe. Also, the argument can be made that not doing everything to protect yourself froma bear puts ALL bears in danger of reprisal and is therefore, irresponsible.

[ed bell]

How is it not a personal comfort zone in regards to personal safety, Kirk? Are you saying that you employ ALL recommended non-weapon measures to avoid bear conflicts? And on top of that do you also carry bearspray, a hunting knife and a large calliber handgun on ALL of your day and overnight trips? Do you research all local bear activity reports to avoid high bear activity areas? Are you keenly aware of local bear hybernation patterns and food source problems? You seem to be implying that those who do not use ALL of the tactics stated above are actually doing harm to bears. I can't find any reason to agree with that conclusion. Like I have said before, concentrating on threats that are VERY low on the probability scale takes away from more realistic threats.

[KirkMcquest]

How is it not a personal comfort zone in regards to personal safety, Kirk? Are you saying that you employ ALL recommended non-weapon measures to avoid bear conflicts? And on top of that do you also carry bearspray, a hunting knife and a large calliber handgun on ALL of your day and overnight trips? Do you research all local bear activity reports to avoid high bear activity areas? Are you keenly aware of local bear hybernation patterns and food source problems? You seem to be implying that those who do not use ALL of the tactics stated above are actually doing harm to bears. I can't find any reason to agree with that conclusion. Like I have said before, concentrating on threats that are VERY low on the probability scale takes away from more realistic threats.

I understand your point, and I stand corrected. I think we are saying the same thing.

[Panzer1]

Moral of the story:
Don't bring sticks and rocks to a bear fight, bring a gun.
If only the mother had been properly armed, her child, and the bear might be alive today.
Let's all learn this lesson, and apply it in the future.

How on earth do you suppose that a mother with 2 small children can be "properly armed"? How can she care for 2 small children and at the same time have a loaded gun in her possession?

How is it that you think that everybody is supposed to be able to defend themselves? Most people rely on others to defend them.

Panzer

[KirkMcquest]

Most people rely on others to defend them.

Panzer

Big mistake

[Panzer1]

Big mistake

Small children cannot be expected to defend themselves.
The elderly cannot be expected to defend themselves.
The sick cannot be expected to defend themselves.
Most women cannot be expected to defend themselves.

That's most people. Are you saying these people are making a "big mistake" by not being able to defend themselves??

Panzer

[KirkMcquest]

I'll give you the small children thing. I know alot of women who will take offense to that exaggerated generalization. As far as the sick and old, I guess its a matter of degrees. With the invention of the firearm, I'd say the vast majority of adults can effectively defend themselves.

And as far as your question about how a mom is supposed to carry a firearm while watching her kids, ever hear of a holster??

I say by giving people the means to defend themselves, they will. Let's not turn this into rocket science.

[Panzer1]

Did your mom carry a gun when you were a child??

Panzer

[KirkMcquest]

Did your mom carry a gun when you were a child??

Panzer

I don't know, she was mauled by a bear when I was 5. She was unarmed.

[Panzer1]

[quote=KirkMcquest]
And as far as your question about how a mom is supposed to carry a firearm while watching her kids, ever hear of a holster??[quote]

How is the mom in question supposed to wear a holster while occasionally having to carry a 2 year child? You have a strange view of motherhood if you are advocating mothers to wear a holster while carrying around their 2 year olds.

Panzer