Being a "good thing"
Or being harmful, are quite different.
I can refer you to a bear attack a few yrs ago where two guys were pursued by black bear after startling it, it chased them, they climbed trees, it climbed trees and pulled them out, while they fought it. It killed one guy, then climbed his buddies tree and pulled him out too. On the ground, fighting it wasnt working, so....he tried plan B...played dead. Exactly what NOT to do when being attacked by black bear. Bear lost interest and left....he survived.
There are no absolutes. Theres no guarantee what any bear will do, only odds . Some momma bears dont run, some bluff charge and slap ground, jaw pop, etc. And some, might just really attack you.
The idea that all animals behave in some defined way all of the time, is far more dangerous, and really is ignorant, and will get people hurt some small percentage of time.
I had a bear with cub a walk 25 ft from me near campsite once in NM. Didnt pay me any attention even though I was plainly visible. It wasnt alarmed, was minding its own business, so I wasnt alarmed. Cub was cute. But...it wasnt supposed to do that...but it did.
Bear wasnt supposed to come down tree 10 ft from me while I was hollering at it to stay in the tree either......but it did. After we stared at each other a couple of sec it dropped to ground and then ran like a bat out of hell.
Last edited by MuddyWaters; 06-20-2017 at 21:53.
just because there are no absolutes doesnt mean that not knowing typically or likely or normal behavior isnt a very useful thing.
you do realize that earlier in this thread, you said in one post "sure, mama bears arent likely to attack you, but its still best to be careful.... yada yada yada" and then two posts later you said "ohh but the odds of a male attacking you are so slim its not worth worrying about."
that illustrates the problem way better than anything i can say or cite would. you have an entirely incorrect assumption about how you think bears behave that you cant seem to let go of it. which is common, others on this thread have already shown the same and everytime it comes up 10 people easily just refuse to accept they're ideas arent actually true.
And this is where I disagree with you tdoczi. Just because the risk jumps up and bites you doesn't mean it was an unwise activity. I assume you are a hiker and hence you post a lot on this website. I think I even recall learning a lot from other posts of yours. However if you are hiking this weekend and a tree limb comes down and seriously harms you and there is an article about it - I guarantee there will be a lot of non-hikers commenting on the article claiming you engaged in an unwise activity. Would you agree with them? I certainly wouldn't.
Let's learn from the misfortune of others, come up with ways of mitigating risks but I certainly don't view swimming in the ocean, going for a run, climbing a mountain or countless other activities that have risks as "unwise" activities.
AT Flip Flop (HF to ME, HF to GA) Thru Hike 2023; LT End-to-Ender 2017; NH 48/48 2015-2021; 21 of 159usForests.com
ok, poorly worded on my part perhaps.
if the tree fell on me, were i still alive afterwards, i would honestly acknowledge that by engaging in the activity i chose to engage in i took the risk of that happening and, unfortunately, it happened.
perhaps that doesnt make it unwise. but we live in a society where, were i die in this unfortunate event, someone would decide that what is necessary is for all the trees all up and down the AT to be inspected at once or some other such nonsense.
in this case, now we get posts about how maybe we should all be more afraid of black bears than we are (nonsense)
post #5 followed by post #9 if interested.
post 5- i still worry about mama bears because even if the odds are low i dont want to be the one exception
post 9- i dont worry about lone male bears, theres too many and the odds of it happening are too low.
the problem is, the one you dont worry about is the one that is much more likely.
Seems like there have been a number of almost inconceivable interactions in recent years-- even on the east coast.
While nothing like the case you cite, last week Fish and Wildlife removed a bear from my town 25 miles due west of Boston.
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/ph...6/PH/1?start=2
Just bizarre.
What am I right about, and what is he wrong about?
You took issue with me suggesting that if someone is mistaken about black bear momma with cubs , that alone isnt going to make them less safe, so its not really a problem.
Did this article say it was a problem and made people less safe?
Aside from that I said predatory bears are not exactly common, and you should be cautious of any abnormal behavior. Is this in conflict with the article or expert?
The one thing I keep repeating is to be cautious, because some small percent of animals dont do what we expect. Remember the guy filming the beaver last year, it attacked, bit his leg, severed artery and he died. Yeah, beavers arent supposed to attack , on land no less. $hit happens. Cant argue " but it wasnt supposed to do that" when you dead.
Last edited by MuddyWaters; 06-20-2017 at 22:32.
you and i seem to have different interpretations of your post #9.
to your larger point- the OP was surprised by this happening with a black bear that wasnt a mom defending cubs. i wasnt. why? because mom's defending cubs never attack, lone male's, while rare, do. if you hear of a fatal black bear attack it is almost always going to be this. ignorance is never helpful, and yes, its harmful. see the OP's further reply about "disturbing" bears and compare it to the analysis in the article.
and with that, i'm off hiking. in a place with no bears.