["We just can't figure it out," said Ron Aasheim, a spokesman for Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. "It doesn't make any sense." All the food in the campground was stored properly in bear-proof containers; the attack was unprovoked; the bear had no history of attacking humans, Aasheim said. "It's a head scratcher."]
what's a head scratcher is how anybody can think we have wild animals figured out because we're the "superior species" on the planet. that guy Aasheim knows these animals aren't puppets, but look at him tread carefully as to not scare the hell out of the ignorant public and blow the lid off this thing. bear dead, her cubs put behind bars to ensure this can't happen; it's the same story with us anytime we've been or feel threatened. how can we hope to live in harmony with nature if we keep taking the pieces out that were already there before us? it's terrible that a man was killed. but is it not just as terrible that we STILL feel the only answer is killing (in regard to "inferior" species that is, considering we harbor heinous murderers in our prisons and on our streets)??
["When you have a dangerous predator like that -- that has no fear of humans -- you've really got a dangerous situation and I think wildlife managers understand there's very little wiggle room here on what to do."]
if they pose a threat, wipe them out. we've surely felt this before..have we progressed AT ALL?!!?
[An autopsy will be carried out "to see if there was something haywire," Aasheim said.]
comment. start a discussion. reexamine what we do
I understand that the statement your trying to make is bigger then this case alone, but I feel you picked the wrong incident as an example to prove your point. It would be a different story if the campers had provoked or left the food out for the bear causing the bear to attack, resulting in them having to putting her down. This however was not the case. All the campers took the proper precautions, and still the bear attacked. Not just one human however, but three in about an hour time. As I'm sure you know, most bear attacks are rare and almost all are the result from the bear feeling threatened and/or protecting its young, hungry and smelling food, or being startled when humans scare them. That's almost all the time however. Bears, just like humans and many other animals, have complex brains. With this high degree of complexity comes the chance for errors and abnormalities, both psychologically and physically (in the brain). Mother nature and life is random, and just like anything else that is normally distributed, not all lay close to the mean. They call it an average for a reason, and you can expect to see outliers. I believe this bear is an example of just that.
ReplyDeleteRegarding on how they handled the situation, and whether or not they should have killed the bear, I think the park authorities did the right thing putting this bear down. As mentioned, the campers did nothing to provoke the bear at all. I believe its safe to say that no one knows why the bear attacked on three separate occasions (proving my point on how this bear is outside the norm). Leaving this bear in the complete wild, far from human interaction would be one thing. However, letting it roam in an area that frequently is used as a camp site would be insane on the park authorities part. I would rather put down a bear that has attacked three people on three different occasions, resulting in one death, then I would risking the chance of letting this bear roam free. I agree with you 100% when you say “it's the same story with us anytime we've been or feel threatened.” In most cases, fear makes people over react. However, this case is noway near an over reaction. An over reaction would be if they sent in hunters to get rid of all the bears in that area, or if they shut down camp sites in fear of more attacks. What happened in this case, regarding the bear and her cubs, was the right course of action. The cubs learn a lot from their mother, this includes feeding. After seeing their mother attack on multiple occasions in a short period of time, no one can say that the cubs will not duplicate what they have seen. Most would agree that putting these cubs in a zoo is a smarter choice then taking a risk and having them display an encore performance in the future.
All in all, the right course of action was taken. The situation is horrible no question, a person lost their life, others injured, a bear put down and her cubs taken out of their natural environment. But what do you think a better choice of action would have been? I understand that the point your trying to make is bigger then this issue at hand, but every big picture can be broken down into the colors that made it. And its in each individual color that one must look and analyze the facts, otherwise all you have are a bunch of cliche topics with blanket statements.
Food for Though by Anthony “The Truth” D'Andrea
"Leaving this bear in the complete wild, far from human interaction would be one thing" -So why wasn't relocation considered for the bear and her cubs? There are some vast wild areas in Alaska where grizzly bears flourish. And, as you know, I'm all for the national park system and having the opportunity to camp in these amazing places. But you have to realize when you're out there that it isn't a red carpet enclosed by a barbed-wire fence, and that's what we think it is because we feel like we have everything figured it out. And THAT is why these people "can't explain" why this happened; we as humans can't admit we don't have these wild animals figured out, otherwise no one would ever feel safe out there. So, the argument for killing her and incarcerating her cubs for life is for the betterment of mankind, right? So it doesn't happen again. Then WHY do we put free-willed, heinous crime committing human beings through the justice system and allow a significant amount of them to remain incarcerated for life or take a plea deal of some sort? And Anthony, look beyond your scope here, that everyone is innocent and all that, because there ARE cases in which it is more than obvious someone did something, and you know that. So I don't get why it's not equal for the bear, if the bear lives in this country and is a "threat to society". Plus, if we keep killing animals because they are dangerous to us (i.e. the wolf, which is a keystone species) then it will be FAR MORE detrimental to us as a species then we can even see right now. I think this is way bigger than killing a "crazy" bear; this speaks to a backwards, self-destructive view of ourselves as compared to the rest of the living things on this planet that we have carried throughout our history and if you look beyond your technological illusions, you can see how much we have declined overall.
ReplyDeleteYou should be way more afraid that Lindsey Lohan is out of jail and back in society. What she does and how much we care about it is ruining us all more than a grizzly could ever. What she does to influence the younger generation, and actually the older generations, too, because they stayed glued to their t.v., is FAR more frightening than a grizzly in the backwoods out west. You can stay out of those woods, but in this day, you cannot escape the media's infectious injection. Unless, of course, you go into those backwoods.. and those people know what I'm talking about.
ReplyDelete[Then WHY do we put free-willed, heinous crime committing human beings through the justice system and allow a significant amount of them to remain incarcerated for life or take a plea deal of some sort?]
ReplyDeleteWell first off, how are you going to know that these people are guilty of the crimes they allegedly committed without having them go through the justice system? The whole point of the justice system is to allow the accused to have a fair forum for a proper defense while they fight for their freedom (and sometimes their life.) This involves having a judgment rendered by their peers (or in some cases a judge) after hearing all the facts surrounding the case. Every United States citizen is entitled to due process. Now as far as a plea bargain goes, there are many reasons why the DA offers defendants them. One is to free up the court system, both time and money. If every single case went to trail (currently only about 10 % do), defendants would be waiting decades before they go to court (violation of Sixth Amendment.) More importantly however, it the fact that anytime you go to trail, no outcome is certain. A prosecutor would rather have a defendant plead guilty and receive a reduced sentience (compared to what they defendant would have received, had he gone to trail and been found guilty) then taking the chance of having them acquitted on all charges. Every case is different, with a different amount of evidence and most cases are not rock solid.
[And Anthony, look beyond your scope here, that everyone is innocent and all that, because there ARE cases in which it is more than obvious someone did something, and you know that.]
Second off, I have never said that everyone is innocent. Each time a topic comes up of someone being accused of something, all I try to do is give that person (who can not defend themselves) a proper defense. Its easy to hear a headline about someone, and then think to yourself “oh yea, he diffidently did it.” All I'm saying is that its not that easy to decide until you know all the facts, and everyone deserves a defense. It's their right to have a proper one, which relates back to their procedural due process.
[So I don't get why it's not equal for the bear, if the bear lives in this country and is a "threat to society"]
ReplyDeleteAre you suggesting that the bear has the same rights that people do, and because of that they should have a fair trial like anyone else? You can not compare the bear to people for a number of reasons. As you know, there are many forms of rights (natural, legal, social, positive, negative.) The United States Constitution sets out legal rights that are granted to all United States citizens. This bear is obviously not a citizen, thus not protected by the Constitution. Also, animals are not autonomous and can not be part of the social contract. They can not make informed rational decisions. That is why the bear is not seen as an “equal.” The bear does possess natural rights however, but to which degree is a large on going debate still taking place. (which I'm sure is where we're heading next)
[I think this is way bigger than killing a "crazy" bear; this speaks to a backwards, self-destructive view of ourselves as compared to the rest of the living things on this planet that we have carried throughout our history and if you look beyond your technological illusions, you can see how much we have declined overall.]
Could not disagree with you more. As I said before, what do you think a proper course of action was? Are we going to relocate every animal that attacks people? Regarding this case at hand, performing a autopsy on this bear is an intelligent procedure. You said it yourself, we do not know everything about these animals, and hopefully the autopsy will tell us something we can learn from. I've already stated multiple times that regrading THIS bear at hand, under the conditions of what happened, the proper steps were taken.
As far as your Lindsey Lohan comment, that is a completely different discussion. Even if she is a greater harm to society then the bear ever could be (which I'm not agreeing or disagreeing), so what? What does that have to do with this bear? Are you trying to make some connection to say because shes aloud out of jail soon that the bear should have been released? Or that because the bear was put down, so should Lohan? To be honest, both are ridiculous. Lindsey Lohan could be another one of your topics for discussion, but for the topic at hand, shes irrelevant.
The Truth
[Are you trying to make some connection to say because shes aloud out of jail soon that the bear should have been released? Or that because the bear was put down, so should Lohan? To be honest, both are ridiculous. Lindsey Lohan could be another one of your topics for discussion, but for the topic at hand, shes irrelevant.]
ReplyDeleteNeither. I was simply comparing societal threats, and saying that I believe Lindsey Lohan "roaming free" is more of an overall THREAT, that is "an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage", than the bear is. Mental degradation as compared to physical damage. Not on the legality or social equality plateaus but speaking simply as a human being who watches others watch people like lohan with an eager eye and become absolutely entranced with their every next step, which is usually in a negative direction for most of these people so therefore: mentally degrading. It's the same discussion for me.
[All I'm saying is that its not that easy to decide until you know all the facts, and everyone deserves a defense. It's their right to have a proper one, which relates back to their procedural due process.]
See, I feel this way, BUT in regard to the bear, as well, and her cubs. "EveryONE deserves a defense"- one what? person? or every ONE. every BEING. This is where I'm at, just to hopefully bring us a little closer together on this, because we are a far way off. Anyway, comment on my other ones, or start your own (if you can? not sure how it works). Thanks
Well, we could site here forever and discus the many threats to society. I understand the point your trying to make. Your absolutely right, there are MANY threats to “us” that are far worse then the bear. However, not all threats can easily be compared to each other. What are you using as a measuring tool to determine your results of the harm? How can you compare a physical threat to a financial? Or a psychological to a social? I made sure to put quotation marks around “us” for a reason. Another thing to consider is who is actually being harmed by the treat. When we mention threats such as Lohan (media brain washing), “us” implies us as a whole, or a society. The harm is spread out between everybody. However, a physical treat hurts an individual, in which all the harm is felt by that individual alone. I'm sure Mr. Kammer and his family would rather suffer from the harm that Lohan inflects, rather then the harm they received from the bear. To summarize, comparing the bears level of harm to Lohans is like comparing apples to oranges.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, your taking my statement about everyone deserving a defense out of context. I was clearly addressing your statements saying I believed everyone was innocent. Which I don't. I believe everyone is entitled to a proper defense, and I was regarding people in that statement. Do I believe that nothing else is entitled to one as well? Not at all. There should be people standing up for animal rights, and there are. You posting this blog is a form of that. There should be people questioning and debating many topics. People should stand up and fight for what they believe in. There should be more of that going on.
Your right, I believe we both have already said all we could regarding this bear. The topic has got off track a little bit, but oh well. Many of the topics we brushed on could be another thread in itself. Hopefully people start to voice their opinions.
The Truth