Fatal grizzly attack renews debate over how many bears are too many | Hacker News Reader

Fatal grizzly attack renews debate over how many bears are too many

npr.org

20 pointsrntn46 comments

I live in a national forest. My road bisects a portion of it. My backyard is 20,000 acres of untouched forest. Across the street is another 10,000 or so acres of the same. We have bears. They even show up on my property (200ish acres). Bears are very respectful generally and are not a problem.

There are problem animals. Possums, raccoons, foxes, and other small mammals are a real nuisance since the bottom has fallen out on the fur trade. They kill turkeys and other vulnerable creatures because there are no checks on them. We have run off the wolves, coyotes, and other predators, leaving these smaller animals as the apex. So lets talk about that, sure, but bears are not a problem.

We could just as well say how many humans are too many.

For that matter, how many humans dumb/negligent enough to be killed by a grizzly are too many.

Perhaps we should leave the bears alone and figure out out to monetize the comical deaths of surplus humans better.

> By the numbers, visitors to the heart of grizzly country in Yellowstone National Park have about the same likelihood of being killed by a falling tree as being killed by a grizzly.

It’s too many bears when this number goes way up, not until then.

It's called grizzly country for a reason. Anyone who lives or visits there should be aware of the risks and prepare accordingly. There are plenty of warnings all over the place.

If grizzlies were roaming freely in the town square, near schools, and around busy tourist spots, then yes, I'd agree that they need to be controlled. But most people who die in bear attacks do so while engaging in obviously reckless behavior, like hiking alone without proper equipment and without any training on how to use it effectively. We can't make nature safe enough for people like that. Next thing you know, we'll be installing fences atop all the cliffs in the Grand Canyon, just in case someone is stupid enough to fall. Oh, and cut down the trees in Yellowstone, too, in case they fall on a person (or a bear).

> engaging in obviously reckless behavior

or is it the bears fault for choosing to violate, and all personal responsibility is victim blaming

(I know people that operate like this, there has to be some kind of middle ground philosophy that makes more sense for reality)

I wonder how much overlap there is between a) people who assign fault to bears, and b) people who actually, seriously believe that animals have rights and responsibilities like we do.

If there isn't much of an overlap, we'd have found a nice paradox. If there's a huge overlap, on the other hand, I guess that would make for an even more interesting discussion. :)

From the bear's perspective, perhaps there are too many humans encroaching on its habitat.

Well, bears are free to file a lawsuit against humans in the local court of law. If they don't they have only themselves to blame for their situation.

Much more detailed history of Grizzlies, Montana and The Endangered Species act on MTPR's site https://www.mtpr.org/montana-news/2021-04-02/timeline-a-hist...

Increased numbers of humans in the grizzlies habitat is likely to mean more human fatalities. Humans are to blame surely.

Perhaps the grizzlies just concluded the debate over how many humans are too many.

I have a vague The Far Side mental image here.

Personally, I'm more interested in the ideal Bear to Picnic Basket ratio.

I believe the correct spelling is pic-a-nic.

> 'Picnic' began life as a 17th-century French word: it wasn't even close to being an American invention. A 1692 edition of Origines de la Langue Françoise de Ménage mentions 'piquenique' as being of recent origin and marks the first appearance of the word in print. As for how the French came by this new term, it was likely invented by joining the common form of the verb 'piquer' (meaning "to pick" or "peck") with 'nique,' possibly either a Germanic term meaning "worthless thing" or merely a nonsense rhyming syllable coined to fit the first half of this new palate-pleaser.

There's another post currently on the front of HN about beavers helping prevent wildfires by just doing beaver things.

Maybe it's people who should stop spreading to every corner of the planet.

Oh right, excuse the fuck outta me this is HN, I forgot we're not allowed to question the orthodoxy that humans deserve to build a world-spanning metropolis because manifest destiny.

This, exactly. We need far more (and larger) protected wildlife areas.

Title should be something like "Some Believe Controlling Grizzly Attacks Is A Matter Of Killing Them"

or like "are bears unbearable"

What I mean to say is, why is it a foregone conclusion that this is the correct approach? Why shouldn't we accept that in cases like this, some people do things that all but guarantee they will become part of the natural processes that surround us constantly?

It's not like grizzlies have any great cultural animosity against humans, or that they have a good enough idea of what the situation is outside of their habitual ranges to plan some grandiose gestures to try to beat back the encroachment of humans. They're just doing what they've always done, and in contrast to humans the grizzly way seems to keep ecosystems more or less healthy.

I say we build a wall. To keep animals outside. And let the animals inside be free of humans.

Fatal grizzly attack renews debate over how many humans are too many

It reminds me of how the less than 1000 wolves of Idaho are terrorizing the 1.9 million human inhabitants.

How about 'Fatal car crash renews debate over how many cars are too many'

I'm pretty sure it's more an issue of "fatal road rage incident renews debate over how many cars are too many". You won't be doing much in the dangerous velocities department with enough cars clogging everything up.

no it's more like "man who steals tank and goes on murder spree renews debate over how many motor vehicles are too many." grizzlies are far, far more dangerous than American black and brown bears—lumping them together is nonsensical.

bears are bros, grizzlies are murder machines

Aren't grizzlies brown bears?

Brown the colour of bear - no (Grizzlies and Black bears can be brown/black/tan/blonde)[0][1]. Brown the (surprisingly poorly named) species (Ursus arctos) - yes[2].

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly_bear [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_black_bear [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_bear

I feel like the first sentence of the wiki article explains it...

>The grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), also known as the North American brown bear or simply grizzly, is a population or subspecies[2] of the brown bear inhabiting North America.

colloquially, the distinction is "black and brown bears" (ursus americanus) and "grizzly bears" (ursus arctos horribilis), at least around here. I hadn't heard of "brown bear" referring to a grizzly until this thread.

colloquial semantics aside though, my point stands: ursus arctos horribilis are mean mofos, ursus americanus are generally chill bros. they're my favorite animal—my grandfather was a dentist, and his friend and fellow dentist Doc Casey founded Bear Country USA, a drive-through zoo, here in the Black Hills. ursus americanus walk up to and by your cars, chill in ponds and trees, and are generally cool to be around. one of Doc Casey's sons was my godfather, and he lived with his family in a house in the middle of Bear Country, and we'd drive through the park backwards after hours to visit them when I was young. somewhere one of my parents has a VHS tape with an ursus americanus cub playing with my dog.

Bear Country used to have grizzlies, in a separate pen with multiple layers of barbed wire and electric fencing, but I think they don't have any anymore because they were too much trouble.

whenever you see a funny bear video online, it's an ursus americanus—they're kind of bumbling, funny creatures, until provoked. ursus arctos horribilis are savage killers by comparison.

I lived in bear country, and still live relatively close and visit all the time. I think it's just generally safe to assume if someone says brown bear, it's a grizzly. Like the old saying doesn't work as well like

If it's black, fight back

If it's ursus arctos horribilis, lay down

If it's white, goodnight.

fair enough!

bears cannot be built safer

Yet

neither can humans be built safer either

Surely cars can and we have seen it over and over

Cars are safer for their occupants, but never really safer for pedestrians. We’re probably making them less safe for pedestrians with all the additional armor and higher center of mass.

> but never really safer for pedestrians.

They can... Automatic breaking is a thing... My car almost had me have an accident while breaking for me (three times)... But it will get better

Hypothetically they could but it appears we are making them less safe for pedestrians and cyclists -

From 2020

> an estimated 38,800 [fatal accidents] that occurred on American streets last year. Pedestrians and cyclists accounted for 8,800 of those fatalities — 23% of the total, up from 6,300 in 2010, when they comprised just 17%. During that period, fatalities for automobile occupants fell

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-08-12/why-are-c...

The only way to make cars hitting pedestrians safer for pedestrians is making cars slower, which is a non-starter.

1] less cars

2] get cars our of cities (see Amsterdam, for example)

3] smaller cars

Smaller cars hit your legs and throw you over the car.

SUVs/trucks hit you in the chest, and drag you under the car.

Ban pedestrians. Also an realistic and effective option.

With terrible externalities, sure.

There are however ways to make cars hit pedestrians less.

I too am concerned with the bear problem in America. They flout our laws and they’re always illegally crossing our borders! We need stronger politicians who would construct a wall to keep the bears out.

How is this related to the article at all? It's about the grizzlies not car crashes

Reply on news.ycombinator.com