Hacker News Reader

Comment by sandworm101 | Hacker News Reader

Britain and Japan, both island nations where anything remotely threatening was wiped out long ago. The largest predator in Japan is the salamander. A meter-long specimen will make news.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/1096...

What's the largest predator in Britain? The badger? The fox? Or that housecat everyone thought was a lion.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-19397686

Talk to anyone in the pacific northwest. If you take only the slightest precautions you have nothing to fear from the wolves, cougars and bears. You are far more likely to be eaten by a fellow human. You are more likely to be killed by deer. They are already all over Britain. So the wolves will in all probability reduce the number of animal-related deaths.

http://www.therichest.com/animals/top-10-animals-that-kill-h...

View on HN

> Talk to anyone in the pacific northwest. If you take only the slightest precautions you have nothing to fear from the wolves, cougars and bears.

I lived in Washington for six years, and I can say that's simply not true. Protecting yourself from predators involves significant work. It's just that everyone is used to it. When camping, you have to store food and toiletries in bear canisters. You have to check for reports of bear activity. You carry bear spray. Some even carry a gun. Despite these preparations, there's the constant anxiety of knowing you might encounter a predator. It really sours the outdoor experience.

> So the wolves will in all probability reduce the number of animal-related deaths.

Wolves aren't the only way to cull the deer population.

When it comes to reintroducing wolves, everyone agrees the risk to humans is low. Almost nobody is going to be killed by wolves. But that argument proves too much. Almost nobody falls victim to serial killers. We still try to reduce the number of serial killers to zero.

Serial killers kill for fun, wolves don't. Other than that,the argument is pretty sound.

Also serial killers target humans. Wolves don't.

Many people go hiking/camping to enjoy a little bit of wildness. We shouldn't kill all the bears just to make the occasional hiker safer. When going to a desert, you need to bring water. When going somewhere with a large population of bears, you need to not tempt them with leaving your food around. If it's going to rain, you need to bring a rain-proof jacket.

I'm always a bit sad when I go hiking in Austria, knowing that all the bears there have been killed.

> It really sours the outdoor experience.

Man, this is going to come off as snarky, but that is the outdoor experience. Put your food up, if not for the bears you're more than likely not going to see, then for the raccoons you most likely will. Bear spray? Not unless I'm somewhere that might have grizzlies, and even then the stuff is a last resort when all other precautions have failed (read the label about the usage range: close enough that you're about to be mauled). I've never looked up reports of bear activity; I assume they're always out there.

"Might encounter a predator", but overwhelming odds are you wont. Fifteen years of tromping around the woods of WA, trail running and hiking, I've seen one brown bear that wanted nothing to do with me. I'm sure I have more to worry about from my fellow drivers on the way to the trailhead than I do from bears and wolves.

We all have our personal worries, and one should pack accordingly. Non-human predators are low in my list of things I pack for. YMMV.

>read the label about the usage range: close enough that you're about to be mauled

There are various bear spray formats. Some have a rather long range (on the order of 10 meters). Still a bit close for comfort; guns are much more effective if you can legally carry them wherever you're camping. Many people doing outdoor activities in grizzly-heavy areas will bring long guns or large handguns.

The can I've got says in big bold letters on the packaging that it will spray 10 meters. The fine print of the instructions tell a different story. Something like five meters, or maybe less (don't bring my bear spray to work, so can't look). Doesn't matter, if there's a grizzly staring me down, I'm spraying that stuff as soon as the bear gets anywhere near me.

As for guns, most of my potential grizzly encounters are going to take place in Canada or someplace that involves going through Canada. Which means no gun-carrying for this U. S. citizen. Yes, technically I think it's possible, but the hassle puts it into my "Bigger Fish to Fry" bucket. I'm also probably going to be on a motorcycle, which means handgun. And from what I've been told by those that would know better than me, your handgun better be a .44 Magnum (biggest I have is a .45 ACP) or you're just going to piss the bear off.

I wish I knew what this bear was thinking:

http://www.mtexpress.com/news/environment/bear-grabs-sleepin...

"A Boise hunter sustained minor wounds when a black bear grabbed him by the head while he was sleeping in the open along the Middle Fork of the Salmon River last week."

"He said that before the men went to sleep on the night of the attack, they had stowed all their food in a box on their raft."

"Jon Rachael, state wildlife manager for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, said unprovoked attacks by black bears are rare, and it’s impossible to say what motivated this one. He guessed that either the bear had become conditioned to people by finding food around them or perhaps was just curious, and grabbed Vouch’s head to see what it was."

> I wish I knew what this bear was thinking

I dunno, put yourself in the bear's place. I think the wildlife manager might be right: the bear was wondering what the heck it was, or maybe even "I wonder if I can eat this". Most humans Mr. or Mrs. Bear encounters are up and moving, probably making noise, maybe even spraying stuff at them (be it bear spray or bullets). This one is just lying there on the ground, presenting a fine opportunity for investigation. Or maybe I'm anthropomophising the bear too much. I'm with you: I do wish I could spend ten seconds inside his little bear brain to see what was motivating him.

One thing I do know is that, despite not giving bear attacks much consideration when I'm out and about, I would never, ever, ever sleep in the open if there might be bears about, especially next to something called the Salmon River. Sure, a tent ain't going to do crap to keep a motivated bear out. But a little "out of sight, out of mind" can go a long way.

I also live in the Pacific Northwest. I live on the edge of a watershed. Black bears, cougars and coyotes live within 300m of my house (you should see our heavily armoured and locked garbage cans). It's a suburb of Vancouver, so no one really has guns (you'd mostly find them clustered around grow ops) and you'd only have bear spray if you're going far into the backcountry -- I have a can somewhere in my garage.

Dealing with the predators here is no more work than dealing with the Sun and sunburns -- a little bit of behaviour changes and a little bit of equipment goes a long ways. People are just used to it too -- putting on sunscreen, wearing hats, knowing when to seek shade.

> When it comes to reintroducing wolves, everyone agrees the risk to humans is low.

The contention is between wildlife activists and ranchers. Wolves tend to feed on livestock. You can imagine how upset a rancher gets when his assets disappear in the middle of the night.

FWIW there are still bears in Japan:

http://www.tofugu.com/2014/04/17/japan-cant-decide-if-bears-...

There are also bears of another species not mentioned there. That said,

> You are far more likely to be eaten by a fellow human.

this is still true.

> FWIW there are still bears in Japan:

Only on Hokkaido (which has 3 different brown bear lineages, and more bears than the contiguous US)

Nonsense, there are 10 times more bears in Honshu than Hokkaido http://www.outdoorjapan.com/magazine/story_details/99

Oh damn, my sources were only about brown bears… whoops?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com