Bear Attack in NJ.

[Uncle Joe]

This doesn't appear to be in on the AT but an attack nonetheless. My first thought was that NJ bears seem to be more aggressive. Maybe population encroachment just makes attacks more likely. I wonder in this case if the bear was using this cave as a place to Winter too.


http://www.nj.com/morris/index.ssf/2015/12/boonton_boy_scout_leader_fought_off_bear_attack_wi .html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured

[burger]

Not an unprovoked attack, just a bear defending it's hibernation area:


"Division of Fish and Wildlife Conservation Officers and the Wildlife Control Unit believe the bear was protecting its hibernation location and they do not, at this point, consider the bear to be a Category I bear," said Considine.

[Uncle Joe]

Not an unprovoked attack, just a bear defending it's hibernation area:

Thanks. I didn't see that as I'd read a condensed version from another site. Makes sense this time of year.

[Pedaling Fool]

Once again the article only leaves a lot of questions, but bears don't protect their young (from humans), so I find it difficult to believe that they protect their hibernation spot and this link seems to support that idea. http://www.bear.org/website/bear-pages/black-bear/black-bear-sign/53-winter-dens.html

I do see this being a possible predation attack, mostly because I think the temps have been fairly mild, so the bear probably hasn't been in a very deep sleep, but I'm making a generalization of temps across the east coast, I haven't check recent weather logs for that area.

The only other possibility I see is that the bear might have felt cornered -- big difference between an animal feeling cornered and protecting its hibernation spot.

But again, there's just not enough information and it looks like this will go down as a mystery, never to be solved/investigated further, since there seems to be an official line already set down as the cause of this attack.

BTW, that article really sucked, just too many questions....

[Tipi Walter]

"Human Population Enroachment" is the key phrase. So why not cull humans? We could drastically lower our numbers by simply closing our borders and lowering our birthrate over time. Give the bears some breathing room. We have 6,500,000 humans in Tennessee and about 5,000 black bears. Uh, and yet we are still "harvesting" black bears every year? How about working on our numbers first??

[Pedaling Fool]

You want to control the population, then you need to lobby congress to NOT allow driver-less vehicle technology to be developed. Think of all the teenage texters, drunks and generally emotionally disturbed people that will be removed (effectively) from our highways :D

[burger]

Once again the article only leaves a lot of questions, but bears don't protect their young (from humans), so I find it difficult to believe that they protect their hibernation spot and this link seems to support that idea. http://www.bear.org/website/bear-pages/black-bear/black-bear-sign/53-winter-dens.html

You really think that a random internet site called "bear.org" is a valid source of information? I'm going to go ahead and trust the NJ wildlife professionals over a non-scientific website.

[burger]

Here's an article talking about bears defending hibernation sites. I wish people would just believe scientists and not make stuff up when they don't like the conclusions.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2026862/Let-sleeping-bears-lie-Even-hibernating-sense-presence-humans.html


[Bears] can wake up very quickly from hibernation to defend themselves if they believe they are about to be attacked - a skill that is necessary as they cannot burrow below ground for protection. Timothy Laske of Medtronic, a medical technology company in Minneapolis, said: 'When we retrieved our data, even though we tried to be as quiet as posible, the bears' heart rates increased before we reached the entrance to their winter den and remained elevated for a number of days. 'This confirms that despite apparent deep sleep, bears are always alert to danger and ready to act... Black bears often make their way into sub-urban areas which can be dangerous and stressful for both bears and humans,' he told the Independent newspaper.

Also, pedaling fool, your quote that bears don't defend their young from humans is 100% wrong. Getting too close to cubs is a major risk factor for attacks. Or does "bear.org" disagree?

[tdoczi]

Here's an article talking about bears defending hibernation sites. I wish people would just believe scientists and not make stuff up when they don't like the conclusions.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2026862/Let-sleeping-bears-lie-Even-hibernating-sense-presence-humans.html



Also, pedaling fool, your quote that bears don't defend their young from humans is 100% wrong. Getting too close to cubs is a major risk factor for attacks. Or does "bear.org" disagree?

no, actually you're wrong. at least when it comes to black bears. black bears in fact do not aggressively defend their young from humans. this is a common misconception/urban myth which can be disproven from reading any number of very reputable sources.

one of many such examples-

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/science/11bears.html?_r=0

now grizzlies on the other hand....

information about defending hibernation sites, especially since black bears don't hibernate (hibernation, scientifically speaking, doesnt just mean spending a lot of time in a cave asleep) likewise is probably very different depending on black vs brown bears.

to me this sounds pretty obvious that a "hibernating" bear got startled. if it was a predatory attack the guy would be a goner. black bears dont prey on humans often at all but when/if they do, playing dead is most definitely not advised.

[tdoczi]

Here's an article talking about bears defending hibernation sites. I wish people would just believe scientists and not make stuff up when they don't like the conclusions.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2026862/Let-sleeping-bears-lie-Even-hibernating-sense-presence-humans.html



Also, pedaling fool, your quote that bears don't defend their young from humans is 100% wrong. Getting too close to cubs is a major risk factor for attacks. Or does "bear.org" disagree?

another reputable source, though if youre like most people i show these too, youll insist to your dying breath that any source about this is wrong, just because.

http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/dfg/dfw/fish-wildlife-plants/mammals/black-bear-faqs.html#mother-cubs

[Uncle Joe]

Here's an article talking about bears defending hibernation sites. I wish people would just believe scientists and not make stuff up when they don't like the conclusions.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2026862/Let-sleeping-bears-lie-Even-hibernating-sense-presence-humans.html


Good reference. I'm not sure "just believing scientists" as a blanket rule is particularly good. But believe the amount of data we do have is certainly good. I think knowing the motivation of every bear attack is impossible but scientists definitely know of some of the reasons. In this case of this attack, he simply didn't expect a bear to be there. Frankly, from the multiple attacks that seem to occur in NJ I would enter the woods expecting anything. Heck, I do that in GA and bear encounters are rather rare here.

[Traveler]

Good reference. I'm not sure "just believing scientists" as a blanket rule is particularly good. But believe the amount of data we do have is certainly good. I think knowing the motivation of every bear attack is impossible but scientists definitely know of some of the reasons. In this case of this attack, he simply didn't expect a bear to be there. Frankly, from the multiple attacks that seem to occur in NJ I would enter the woods expecting anything. Heck, I do that in GA and bear encounters are rather rare here.

I don't disagree with this, however the one thing that stood out in the article that made me read it twice was the dog. In the article, the dog appears at the end of the event chasing the bear away, which does little to tell me what the dog was up to at the start of the event. Could be a partial story here, which may have been precipitated by the dog, requiring the scout leader to go into the cave to get the dog or something along those lines.

Certainly, something caused the scout leader to go into the cave and have his day ruined.

[BirdBrain]

Not an unprovoked attack, just a bear defending it's hibernation area:

Having tired of the bear population/danger debate, I will make an alternative comment that will likely roll as many eyes as my "do what Mainer's do" comments draw.

Bears don't hibernate. They torpor.

http://beartrust.org/do-bears-hibernate

http://www.bigcat.org/news/the-truth-about-bears-and-hibernation

So many misconceptions. So few open minds.

But ya'. Copy Maine's approach. :D

[burger]

Bears don't hibernate. They torpor.

Touche.

Also, I just browsed through some scientific papers, and there are a number of reports of female black bears with cubs attacking people, but it is far more common for grizzlies. Herrero's book on bear attacks says that in areas with a lot of people (like, say, most of the AT), females with cubs are more likely to attack defensively than in less disturbed areas.

Anyway, the bigger point about the bear in NJ defending its den stands.

[BirdBrain]

Anyway, the bigger point about the bear in NJ defending its den stands.

Absolutely. Common sense can be rare. Enjoy the bear debate folks. I am out.

[Uncle Joe]

I think too many people try to ascribe reasons and rationale to a bear attack. They're bears. They are predators and have been attacking humans (and most anything else) for thousands of years. Yes, we should try to understand them and mitigate human attacks (and for that matter interaction) but I see too many people trying to ascribe meaning to these attacks or worse, ascribe blame...to both sides. We should try to learn from attacks like this, don't get me wrong, but barring being there at the time we just don't know who's to "blame." Frankly, in nature there really is no blame. There simply is nature.

[squeezebox]

maybe he was looking for the man who shot his pa !!

[saltysack]

"Human Population Enroachment" is the key phrase. So why not cull humans? We could drastically lower our numbers by simply closing our borders and lowering our birthrate over time. Give the bears some breathing room. We have 6,500,000 humans in Tennessee and about 5,000 black bears. Uh, and yet we are still "harvesting" black bears every year? How about working on our numbers first??

Well said.....people are ignorant...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tdoczi]

Touche.

Also, I just browsed through some scientific papers, and there are a number of reports of female black bears with cubs attacking people, but it is far more common for grizzlies. Herrero's book on bear attacks says that in areas with a lot of people (like, say, most of the AT), females with cubs are more likely to attack defensively than in less disturbed areas.

Anyway, the bigger point about the bear in NJ defending its den stands.

the NY times article i supplied the link to can be neatly summed up like this-

1) black bear attacks are very rare
2) documented attacks of black bears on humans are overwhelmingly a loan male who sees a human as prey.

i dont know who herrero is or what he is saying, but it would seem he has access to different statistics and reports if he knows of a number of mama black bears attacking humans in defense of cubs. no statistics i have ever seen anywhere supports this notion.

have you ever ran across a female with cubs out hiking on the AT or in another area such as you describe? i have, many times. they run off and/or climb a tree as if all the demons of hell were after them.

ive also walked up on a large adult male. he wasnt scared of me at all. we stopped and looked at each other sizing each other up for what seemed like an eternity before he dropped his gaze and slowly and deliberately continued on his way.

i'll take the mama and her cubs any days, thanks.

[AO2134]

I dislike this idea that seems prevalent in our community that the woods are "bear territory" and wildlife "own" the woods. This is asinine in my opinion. They don't "own" the woods any more then we do. We cohabitate with them while we are in the woods so we must be smart about what we do, but they have no superior claim to the woods than we do.

[burger]

i dont know who herrero is or what he is saying, but it would seem he has access to different statistics and reports if he knows of a number of mama black bears attacking humans in defense of cubs. no statistics i have ever seen anywhere supports this notion.

Stephen Herrero is literally the researcher who wrote the book on bear attacks--it's called "Bear Attacks." He was the source of the NY Times article you linked to. But that article (and the journal article it referenced) was only talking about fatal attacks. The vast majority of fatal attacks are predatory attacks by males. Defensive attacks are much less likely to be fatal, and that would include instances where females defend their young.

Yes, I'm well aware that black bear attacks are quite rare, and the risk for an AT hiker is miniscule. I'm just saying that there have been defensive attacks by females with cubs for black bears.

[Pedaling Fool]

Here's an article talking about bears defending hibernation sites. I wish people would just believe scientists and not make stuff up when they don't like the conclusions.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2026862/Let-sleeping-bears-lie-Even-hibernating-sense-presence-humans.html



Also, pedaling fool, your quote that bears don't defend their young from humans is 100% wrong. Getting too close to cubs is a major risk factor for attacks. Or does "bear.org" disagree?


Most of your points have been shown to be faulty, espeically with the NYT article in post #9, notice the source, Dr. Stephen Herrero.

But on your article, it seems to support my position that a bear is not defending its den, rather defending itself. I'm guessing here, but it's probably a defensive tactic they developed, since I remember reading about grizzly bears will sometimes invade their dens, kill and eat them.

They can wake up very quickly from hibernation to defend themselves if they believe they are about to be attacked - a skill that is necessary as they cannot burrow below ground for protection.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2026862/Let-sleeping-bears-lie-Even-hibernating-sense-presence-humans.html#ixzz3uzCUc59P
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bBOTTqvd0r3Pooab7jrHcU&u=MailOnline) | DailyMail on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bBOTTqvd0r3Pooab7jrHcU&u=DailyMail)

However, if you read my post above, I asked the question of how deeply asleep this bear was, since the winter on the east coast has been so mild. Also notice, that I didn't say it was probable, simply that it was a possibility, period. However, it's easily just as possible (and probably more probable) that it felt cornered. That's all I was saying.

Bottomline, I'm not making a prediction, I only listed two possibilites, but still not nearly enough information to know. This incidence will probably remain a mystery in my mind, but you can tell yourself any fantasy you like -- personally, I'm not so quick to form an opinion.



P.S. on the issue of Hibernation vs. Torpor

This is somewhat of a controversial subject in some circles, including bear.org, which have concluded that bears do hibernate. Read the page here and notice the references. Bear.org is not just some web page of bears, a little more than that. My personal opinion, I don't really care and won't get into a debate about these definitions; however, after reading physiology behind a bear's hibernation/torpor, I know one thing: it's not just a simple sleep, it's a very complicated thing and can be more impressive than animals that have always been know to hibernate. http://www.bear.org/website/bear-pages/black-bear/hibernation/190-do-black-bears-hibernate.html

[colorado_rob]

I dislike this idea that seems prevalent in our community that the woods are "bear territory" and wildlife "own" the woods. This is asinine in my opinion. They don't "own" the woods any more then we do. We cohabitate with them while we are in the woods so we must be smart about what we do, but they have no superior claim to the woods than we do.Hear, Hear!

If there's one thing I (think I) know about Bear encounters, after about a half dozen very close encounters over my mountain decades, is that they are completely unpredictable. though I'm a firm believer in all things having to do with science, there is such a prevalence towards random events in our great outdoors. I put "bear behavior science" right up there with weather "prediction". We can kinda give an idea of what will happen, but then out Great Mother (nature) takes over....

See attached pic of my wife's backpack.... the red stuff is bear slobber after he (she?) ate our Gatorade powder....

[Traveler]

Well said.....people are ignorant...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Ignorance can be cured, stupid is forever" Miriam

[tdoczi]

Stephen Herrero is literally the researcher who wrote the book on bear attacks--it's called "Bear Attacks." He was the source of the NY Times article you linked to. But that article (and the journal article it referenced) was only talking about fatal attacks. The vast majority of fatal attacks are predatory attacks by males. Defensive attacks are much less likely to be fatal, and that would include instances where females defend their young.

Yes, I'm well aware that black bear attacks are quite rare, and the risk for an AT hiker is miniscule. I'm just saying that there have been defensive attacks by females with cubs for black bears.


doh. been awhile since i actually read the article at that link.

so youre saying he contradicts his own research in his book?

i really can not ever remember hearing about 1 single black bear attack by a female defending cubs. thats not to say it never happens, particularly with other mitigating circumstances (ie cornered and unable to flee) it very well could. but the idea that a mama black bear is more likely to attack than other black bears is nothing but legend or incorrectly attributing grizzly bear behavior to black bears.

ive walked right by a mama grizzly and her cubs too for that matter. she didnt attack either. they were more likely too, but even with grizzlies, circumstances are as if not more important than the simple idea of mama and cubs = attack.

[burger]

doh. been awhile since i actually read the article at that link.

so youre saying he contradicts his own research in his book?

i really can not ever remember hearing about 1 single black bear attack by a female defending cubs. thats not to say it never happens, particularly with other mitigating circumstances (ie cornered and unable to flee) it very well could. but the idea that a mama black bear is more likely to attack than other black bears is nothing but legend or incorrectly attributing grizzly bear behavior to black bears.

ive walked right by a mama grizzly and her cubs too for that matter. she didnt attack either. they were more likely too, but even with grizzlies, circumstances are as if not more important than the simple idea of mama and cubs = attack.

No, the article was just FATAL attacks. The book was much more general. The book did mention a few instances of female black bears with cubs attacking in defense. Like I said, though, black bear attacks are still rare.

Herrero's book says that 75% of sudden grizzly attacks (where there wasn't stalking ahead of time) are females with cubs.

[tdoczi]

No, the article was just FATAL attacks. The book was much more general. The book did mention a few instances of female black bears with cubs attacking in defense. Like I said, though, black bear attacks are still rare.

Herrero's book says that 75% of sudden grizzly attacks (where there wasn't stalking ahead of time) are females with cubs.


i think even if you expand the article's concept to be all attacks rather than fatal ones the notion that attacks by mamas defending cubs is more common than other types would still prove false, and not by a little bit.

[somers515]

I don't disagree with this, however the one thing that stood out in the article that made me read it twice was the dog. In the article, the dog appears at the end of the event chasing the bear away, which does little to tell me what the dog was up to at the start of the event. Could be a partial story here, which may have been precipitated by the dog, requiring the scout leader to go into the cave to get the dog or something along those lines.

Certainly, something caused the scout leader to go into the cave and have his day ruined.

The Chicago Tribune reported that the scout leader had gone into that cave for many years and never seen a bear in the cave before. He was showing the scouts the cave.

Here's the entire article:

Tribune wire reports7:09 am, December 21, 2015
A Boy Scout leader who was pulled into a cave by a bear in northern New Jersey beat off the animal with a rock hammer while the three young Scouts with him called for help.
Christopher Petronino, 50, and the scouts were hiking at Split Rock Reservoir Sunday afternoon when he stopped to show the boys a cave, N.J.com reported. He dipped into a small crevasse leading to it and the bear grabbed him by the foot and yanked him inside. It began biting his legs and shoulders and Petronino fought it off, the website said.
"Petronino struck the bear twice in the head with a rock hammer. He then pulled his sweatshirt over his head and curled into the fetal position," Bob Considine, a spokesman for the state Department of Environmental Protection, said in a statement. "He yelled to the scouts, who were outside the cave, to leave and go get help."
The boys used a cell phone to call authorities, who told them to place any food they had outside the cave to lure the bear away from Petronino. When it emerged, a dog that had come along with the group began barking and the bear ran up a nearby hillside.
Considine said the scout leader spent about 80 minutes inside the cave before escaping. He was airlifted to Morristown Medical Center where his wounds were treated. The scouts, from a Boonton-based troop, were released to their parents.
Petronino told authorities he'd visited the cave regularly for decades and had never seen a bear.
Considine said state wildlife officials believe the bear was protecting its hibernation location. They have placed traps around the area where the attack occurred and hope to capture it.
Hunters in New Jersey killed 510 bears during the state's extended black bear hunt, which ended Saturday. Fifty-eight were harvested in Morris County, where Split Rock Reservoir is located.

[Tipi Walter]

I dislike this idea that seems prevalent in our community that the woods are "bear territory" and wildlife "own" the woods. This is asinine in my opinion. They don't "own" the woods any more then we do. We cohabitate with them while we are in the woods so we must be smart about what we do, but they have no superior claim to the woods than we do.

They certainly own the woods a thousand times more than we do for the simple fact that they do not chainsaw down the woods or bulldoze in roads or develop sprawl or drive ATVs or participate in mountaintop removal and deforestation. We do. Not only do we "own" the woods but we try to eradicate every big predator that is left and we completely control all land whether wilderness or not.

Human culture and human centrism, i.e. we're the center of the universe, is on full display for anyone to see. The California state flag has on it the Golden Bear, now extinct due to humans. The grizzly population in the lower 48 is down to 2% of their numbers before European arrival.

Bears have a HUGE superior claim to the woods they wander as they have the long term wisdom to live in their environment in a sustainable way. And have been doing so for hundreds of thousands of years, maybe millions. And look what we humans have done to the North American continent and our habitat (and their habitat) in such a short time. How many bears drive 40 foot RVs thru Yellowstone NP?

[Traveler]

The Chicago Tribune reported that the scout leader had gone into that cave for many years and never seen a bear in the cave before. He was showing the scouts the cave.

Here's the entire article:

Tribune wire reports7:09 am, December 21, 2015
A Boy Scout leader who was pulled into a cave by a bear in northern New Jersey beat off the animal with a rock hammer while the three young Scouts with him called for help.
Christopher Petronino, 50, and the scouts were hiking at Split Rock Reservoir Sunday afternoon when he stopped to show the boys a cave, N.J.com reported. He dipped into a small crevasse leading to it and the bear grabbed him by the foot and yanked him inside. It began biting his legs and shoulders and Petronino fought it off, the website said.
"Petronino struck the bear twice in the head with a rock hammer. He then pulled his sweatshirt over his head and curled into the fetal position," Bob Considine, a spokesman for the state Department of Environmental Protection, said in a statement. "He yelled to the scouts, who were outside the cave, to leave and go get help."
The boys used a cell phone to call authorities, who told them to place any food they had outside the cave to lure the bear away from Petronino. When it emerged, a dog that had come along with the group began barking and the bear ran up a nearby hillside.
Considine said the scout leader spent about 80 minutes inside the cave before escaping. He was airlifted to Morristown Medical Center where his wounds were treated. The scouts, from a Boonton-based troop, were released to their parents.
Petronino told authorities he'd visited the cave regularly for decades and had never seen a bear.
Considine said state wildlife officials believe the bear was protecting its hibernation location. They have placed traps around the area where the attack occurred and hope to capture it.
Hunters in New Jersey killed 510 bears during the state's extended black bear hunt, which ended Saturday. Fifty-eight were harvested in Morris County, where Split Rock Reservoir is located.

My point was more along the lines of the full story typically isn't known, or is inaccurately reported for a few days following events like this. Could be the exception that proves the rule, the guy had spelunking with the boys on his mind or looking for gemstones.

[Tipi Walter]

Hunters in New Jersey killed 510 bears during the state's extended black bear hunt, which ended Saturday. Fifty-eight were harvested in Morris County, where Split Rock Reservoir is located.

Just read this quote over and over and try to understand the lunacy of it. No wonder the bear fought back---He and "his people" are being targeted for "ethnic cleansing". Wouldn't you want to fight back? How does he know the difference between a hunter and a hiker? All could be murderous threats to him.

And why are the bears being hunted and slaughtered? Did they join ISIS? Did they shoot up a school? Did they sell meth? Naw, their crime is Simple Existence. Meanwhile 9,000,000 people live in New Jersey and get to tweet and eat ice cream and get drunk and celebrate the holidays but god help the nuisance bear.

[AO2134]

How many bears drive 40 foot RVs thru Yellowstone NP?

That answer is simple. The same number of bears that CAN drive a 40 foot RVs thru Yellowstone NP.

What causes their "superior claim?"

Their benevolence? Your example is misplaced. It seems to equate an inability to do something to benevolence. That is a false equivocation. Do you think that if bears had our abilities that none of them would do what we as humanity do? That they are inherently benevolent? They have no inherent benevolence. They have inherent limitations. I want you to assume that it is early spring. Bears just came out of hibernation. Mother bear comes across a wounded nearly extinct animal or succulent plant. We both know what will happen to that poor now extinct animal or plant. They aren't inherently benevolent; they are inherently limited.

We know it isn't their intelligence or power. They exist at our sufferance. I don't advocate hunting, especially for sport. I find hunting for sport disgusting practice that should be a crime. I never have and never will hunt an animal, except maybe fishing. I don't own a gun and don't like that others near me have one or own one. That being said, it is undisputed that we have the power or intelligence to wipe them off the Earth. They do not have a similar power over us. So clearly it ain't that. And I am not saying we should do so, I am trying to get at what the source of their inherent right or superior claim is.

Is it because they have been there longer? That can't be it. New species develop all the time. New species also have a right to exist.

So the idea to me at least that bears "own" the woods or have a superior claim to the woods than humanity does is simply an opinion at best, not a fact based on anything from reality. When we hike, we share a space. We should take precautions to make sure we do so safely without causing ourselves and the bears any danger. We should minimize our impact. We should leave no trace, properly store food, prevent the things that cause interactions between humans and bears as much as possible, but a superior claim? I don't see it in fact or reasoning. Perhaps you could argue they SHOULD have a superior claim. I would disagree with that too, but at least your arguments carries more weight in my opinion.

When a bear walks into my neighborhood, do I show it my properly records and say "hey bear, see this. Get off my land. I own this land. I have a superior claim to this land." If I don't have a superior claim on my land, why do bears have it on the mountains? We cohabitate with bears and other animals when we are on the trail. That is all.

[FlyFishNut]

He was a hairy bear. He was a scary bear. So he followed him back to his lair.

[SWODaddy]

the NY times article i supplied the link to can be neatly summed up like this-

1) black bear attacks are very rare
2) documented attacks of black bears on humans are overwhelmingly a loan male who sees a human as prey.

i dont know who herrero is or what he is saying, but it would seem he has access to different statistics and reports if he knows of a number of mama black bears attacking humans in defense of cubs. no statistics i have ever seen anywhere supports this notion.

have you ever ran across a female with cubs out hiking on the AT or in another area such as you describe? i have, many times. they run off and/or climb a tree as if all the demons of hell were after them.

ive also walked up on a large adult male. he wasnt scared of me at all. we stopped and looked at each other sizing each other up for what seemed like an eternity before he dropped his gaze and slowly and deliberately continued on his way.

i'll take the mama and her cubs any days, thanks.

Yep, this. I'll add that statistically, they are often younger male black bears as well. Most black bear attacks are predatory. Brown bears....completely different story.

[SWODaddy]

Just read this quote over and over and try to understand the lunacy of it. No wonder the bear fought back---He and "his people" are being targeted for "ethnic cleansing". Wouldn't you want to fight back? How does he know the difference between a hunter and a hiker? All could be murderous threats to him.


By this logic, the Smokies and Shenandoah should be the safest place to encounter a bear. :rolleyes: Maybe you should share your theory with all the parks that practice harassment techniques to ensure humans and bears get along.

[SouthMark]

You really think that a random internet site called "bear.org" is a valid source of information? I'm going to go ahead and trust the NJ wildlife professionals over a non-scientific website.

Actually it is a scientific site. They have been studying black bears for well over 50 years. Dr Rogers even wrote the National Forest Service "Living With Black Bears". He probably knows much more about black bear habits that any wildlife professional.

[Goatgas]

The bear was from Jersey, need I say more? Fuggetaboutit!! lol

[Coffee]

I'm pretty tired and about to go to sleep for the evening. If someone came into my bedroom uninvited while I was drowsily falling asleep, I wouldn't take kindly to it. It is hard to blame a bear for defending his hibernation den.

[burger]

Actually it is a scientific site. They have been studying black bears for well over 50 years. Dr Rogers even wrote the National Forest Service "Living With Black Bears". He probably knows much more about black bear habits that any wildlife professional.

There are only 2 types of useful scientific information on the web: actual scientific papers which are peer-reviewed, and science journalism (which is ideally written by a science-educated reporter and based on interviews with scientists). Everything else should be considered BS--and usually is--until proven otherwise. I already quoted real scientists saying that bears defend their dens.

[Uncle Joe]

Just read this quote over and over and try to understand the lunacy of it. No wonder the bear fought back---He and "his people" are being targeted for "ethnic cleansing". Wouldn't you want to fight back? How does he know the difference between a hunter and a hiker? All could be murderous threats to him.

And why are the bears being hunted and slaughtered? Did they join ISIS? Did they shoot up a school? Did they sell meth? Naw, their crime is Simple Existence. Meanwhile 9,000,000 people live in New Jersey and get to tweet and eat ice cream and get drunk and celebrate the holidays but god help the nuisance bear.

I get being passionate but with all do respect this a bit silly. I'll assume, given the last line that it and the first are a bit tongue-in-cheek.

[rocketsocks]

My point was more along the lines of the full story typically isn't known, or is inaccurately reported for a few days following events like this. Could be the exception that proves the rule, the guy had spelunking with the boys on his mind or looking for gemstones.geology badge

[Tipi Walter]

That answer is simple. The same number of bears that CAN drive a 40 foot RVs thru Yellowstone NP.

What causes their "superior claim?"

Their benevolence? Your example is misplaced. It seems to equate an inability to do something to benevolence. That is a false equivocation. Do you think that if bears had our abilities that none of them would do what we as humanity do? That they are inherently benevolent? They have no inherent benevolence. They have inherent limitations. I want you to assume that it is early spring. Bears just came out of hibernation. Mother bear comes across a wounded nearly extinct animal or succulent plant. We both know what will happen to that poor now extinct animal or plant. They aren't inherently benevolent; they are inherently limited.

We know it isn't their intelligence or power. They exist at our sufferance. I don't advocate hunting, especially for sport. I find hunting for sport disgusting practice that should be a crime. I never have and never will hunt an animal, except maybe fishing. I don't own a gun and don't like that others near me have one or own one. That being said, it is undisputed that we have the power or intelligence to wipe them off the Earth. They do not have a similar power over us. So clearly it ain't that. And I am not saying we should do so, I am trying to get at what the source of their inherent right or superior claim is.

Is it because they have been there longer? That can't be it. New species develop all the time. New species also have a right to exist.

So the idea to me at least that bears "own" the woods or have a superior claim to the woods than humanity does is simply an opinion at best, not a fact based on anything from reality. When we hike, we share a space. We should take precautions to make sure we do so safely without causing ourselves and the bears any danger. We should minimize our impact. We should leave no trace, properly store food, prevent the things that cause interactions between humans and bears as much as possible, but a superior claim? I don't see it in fact or reasoning. Perhaps you could argue they SHOULD have a superior claim. I would disagree with that too, but at least your arguments carries more weight in my opinion.

When a bear walks into my neighborhood, do I show it my properly records and say "hey bear, see this. Get off my land. I own this land. I have a superior claim to this land." If I don't have a superior claim on my land, why do bears have it on the mountains? We cohabitate with bears and other animals when we are on the trail. That is all.

Let's break this one down---

** Benevolence: I equate benevolence to how a species treats its environment, it's ecosystem. The proof is in the results. Bears have learned over millions of years to live in balance with their environment. We have not. So, Bears 1 Humans 0.

** We have the intelligence to wipe them off the earth? Now this is a real oxymoron. Using the word "intelligence" with the allusion to "extinction" really shows the hubris of the human species. What kind of so-called intelligence is this? It takes a tremendous amount of wisdom for a species to live in balance with its environment. What is wisdom? Knowing the long term consequences of your actions. Bears have this wisdom by the simple proof of their long-term existence in their environment. Humans do not have this wisdom. Don't believe me? Study the polluted Superfund sites in New Jersey:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites_in_New_Jersey

So, while all these ravaged sites are wastelands, we are concerned in New Jersey about killing more black bears? How many superfund sites are due to Bear activity?

** We should minimize our impact? We ain't. Period, end of story.

And killing 500+ bears on an organized hunt in New Jersey proves we are NOT successfully "cohabiting" with the animals. With 9,000,000 humans in NJ versus a couple thousand black bears, which species is the one out of control and needs to be culled?

[AO2134]

Let's break this one down---

** Benevolence: I equate benevolence to how a species treats its environment, it's ecosystem. The proof is in the results. Bears have learned over millions of years to live in balance with their environment. We have not. So, Bears 1 Humans 0.

** We have the intelligence to wipe them off the earth? Now this is a real oxymoron. Using the word "intelligence" with the allusion to "extinction" really shows the hubris of the human species. What kind of so-called intelligence is this? It takes a tremendous amount of wisdom for a species to live in balance with its environment. What is wisdom? Knowing the long term consequences of your actions. Bears have this wisdom by the simple proof of their long-term existence in their environment. Humans do not have this wisdom. Don't believe me? Study the polluted Superfund sites in New Jersey:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites_in_New_Jersey

So, while all these ravaged sites are wastelands, we are concerned in New Jersey about killing more black bears? How many superfund sites are due to Bear activity?

** We should minimize our impact? We ain't. Period, end of story.

And killing 500+ bears on an organized hunt in New Jersey proves we are NOT successfully "cohabiting" with the animals. With 9,000,000 humans in NJ versus a couple thousand black bears, which species is the one out of control and needs to be culled?

Tipi. This may a difference of opinion but, again, bears aren't inherently benevolent or kind to the environment. They are inherently limited. That is not benevolence. That is limitation. Smaller brains. Not bigger hearts.

Last time I checked, survival of the fittest was the law before humanity came into existence. It still is a law of nature. Bear kills human. That is just the bear being a bear. The human kills a bear; he is a heartless monster. This is a clear double standard. On it's face. Plain as day. So what is the cause of the double standard? You either have to accept there is a double standard and live with it or realize the cause of the double standard. Our intellectual superiority. Humanity should be held to a higher standard because we are the only species on this planet that can SAVE or DESTROY most animal life. Survival of the fittest is not man made law. It existed before we came along.

How many species have died because a new disease (virus, fungus, bacteria) came along and decimated a whole species? How many species have died because a new predator moved in which was slightly smarter, faster stronger and made the older model extinct? Do you really think this is something new? Different? Long before we existed, animals hunting other animals, changing climates and environments have caused extinction events long before we came along.

This is nothing new. The only difference is that we are the first species that can do something about it. And we can because we are in fact superior. Collectively or individually we can decide to not kill this animal/plant. Collectively or individually, we can decide to help protect this extinct animals/plant. Or, in the alternative, collectively or individually we can decide to do harm.

It is not hubris. It is a fact. You don't like the fact. Neither do I, but it doesn't make it any less true. Ignoring plain as day facts do not make them any less true. The validity of the statement is not dependent on your liking it or agreeing with it.

You ignored the hypothetical, but a bear who comes across a nearly extinct animal or plant does not care whether it is nearly extinct. It feeds. That is what nature has taught it to do. Biologically, they are programmed to put their survival first. They could care less about the fact that the plant they are about to eat will be extinct. They simple eat.

No one is saying humanity hasn't caused damage to this world. I am not. Don't think you can win an argument by taking my position, ignore the position by taking it to an extreme, and then saying it is stupid. That is not logical thinking. That is what politicians do.

An example based on your argument. I can do this too; I just choose not to.

Conclusion: Bears have a superior claim.

Premise 1: Humans destroy the world.

Premise 2: Bears don't.

Premise 3: That which destroys the world, doesn't deserve the have a superior claim.

I can take your premise 3 and take it to an extreme. Modify it to say that which destroys the world, doesn't deserve to live. Now I can say your argument is silly because you advocate human extinction. I could take this farther, but I hope this has made it's point.

This only works for politicians because most people are stupid. It isn't even reductio ad absurdum. It is just a false argument form.