the statistics are attack by attack. Not the sheer number of attacks. The whole point that was made in thearticle was no, its statistically safer to be attacked by a grizzly. I dont know,
In The ALeutians we were doing geophysics on Loran stations, Saw lots of browns and barren ground grizzlies and blacks. We gave em all distance and careful watch
Of course I have no desire to cross paths with any bear, but from everything I've read, the black bear is the one humans should fear the most. I'm gonna go see if I can find something on it.
Quote:
The stated concerns over public safety are also unconvincing. Based on extrapolations from areas with similar conditions, the frequency of human deaths or injury from grizzly bear attacks from a recovered population in the Bitterroot will be extremely rare. Overall, there is an average of about 3 human deaths caused by bear attacks per year in all of North America from polar bears, black bears, and grizzly bears. In the Bob Marshall wilderness area of Montana, which is most similar to the wilderness areas in the Bitterroots, there has not been a human mortality from grizzly attack since 1959.
This was all I could find quickly. I wish I remember where I saw the article, I remember a passage in Bill Brysons book "Awalk in the woods" that made the point that Black Bears are much more dangerous because they WILL eat you fresh. Especially if you have a snickers. Like that kid in N C this past week. He was being dragged away from his camp, tent and all. Turned out he had a whole pack of Little Debhbies and some sugary drinks in his tent. He was a scout too.
gunga-In the interests of science, I believe you may be correct. I just found 2 articles that said, by far grizzlies are more ill tempered and dangerous than black bears. I also found some really good advice
AVOIDING BECOMING BLACK BEAR POOP
Stand up and make yourself as big as possible and make noise,slowly move away, but never lie down and "feint death" the black bear may take you as a mea
lSIMILAR INSTRUCTIONS RE: GRIZZLY BEARS
If charged by a grizzly bear , roll up in a tight ball, the grizzly will probably not hurt you.
(RIIIIgghttt ..You first Mr National Geographics article writer)
I have just debated myself , and lost
farmerman wrote:Quote:
The stated concerns over public safety are also unconvincing. Based on extrapolations from areas with similar conditions, the frequency of human deaths or injury from grizzly bear attacks from a recovered population in the Bitterroot will be extremely rare. Overall, there is an average of about 3 human deaths caused by bear attacks per year in all of North America from polar bears, black bears, and grizzly bears. In the Bob Marshall wilderness area of Montana, which is most similar to the wilderness areas in the Bitterroots, there has not been a human mortality from grizzly attack since 1959.
This was all I could find quickly. I wish I remember where I saw the article, I remember a passage in Bill Brysons book "Awalk in the woods" that made the point that Black Bears are much more dangerous because they WILL eat you fresh. Especially if you have a snickers. Like that kid in N C this past week. He was being dragged away from his camp, tent and all. Turned out he had a whole pack of Little Debhbies and some sugary drinks in his tent. He was a scout too.
Ahhhhhhh!!!! That's where I read about it. I read Bill Brysons "A walk in the woods" when on vacation in Maine several years ago. A good read.
I also did some research and it looks like there are more black bear attacks on humans, but it's because the amount of black bear out number the grizzly by far.
I also remembered reading about how you can play dead with a grizzly and survive, but it won't work for a black bear.
I hope I never have to test that theory.
farmerman wrote:gunga-In the interests of science, I believe you may be correct. I just found 2 articles that said, by far grizzlies are more ill tempered and dangerous than black bears. I also found some really good advice
AVOIDING BECOMING BLACK BEAR POOP
Stand up and make yourself as big as possible and make noise,slowly move away, but never lie down and "feint death" the black bear may take you as a mea
lSIMILAR INSTRUCTIONS RE: GRIZZLY BEARS
If charged by a grizzly bear , roll up in a tight ball, the grizzly will probably not hurt you.
(RIIIIgghttt ..You first Mr National Geographics article writer)
Here's the real advice: In bear country, pack enough heat to take the bear out if worst comes to worst. A 44 magnum revolver with heavy hard-cast bullets will suffice for any bear (it might take as many as two shots, but you've got em) and if you really want to be serious about the whole thing, one of those Marlin 45/70s. A 45/70 with 400-grain hard-cast bullets won't take more than one shot.
I agree with you there gunga, I know I wouldn't go into the deep woods without a gun. Far too many things can happen when you're in wild animal territory. I would never shoot any animal unless it was to defend someone from an attack.
You're better to be safe than sorry.
Montana wrote:I agree with you there gunga, I know I wouldn't go into the deep woods without a gun. Far too many things can happen when you're in wild animal territory. I would never shoot any animal unless it was to defend someone from an attack.
What about if you were really, really, really hungry, and there was no grocery store or fast food outlet within 1000 miles?
In terms of all around nastiness - unpredictability, aggressive attitude, lack of fear of humans, and willingness to attempt eat to anything it can get its mouth to, all coupled with enormous size, incredible strength, amazing agility and positively umbelieveable speed and endurance, on land or in water, you'd hafta look pretty har to find the equal, let alone the better, of the polar bear.
Oh, and gunga, I'm no "Wolf Lover" - I'm a critter lover. There's plenty of room for all of 'em ....well, I ain't all that found bitey bugs .... but bats and frogs and birds and turtles and fish like 'em, so I'll defer to those who do have a use for 'em. What I've got no like for at all are idiot humans of the sort that fail to comprehend that, and understand how, humans, their accoutrements, crops, and critters and wild critters, growin' things, and landscape features can get along just fine. The problem is the idiot humans ... not the critters, the accoutrements, the crops, the domestic or the wild critters, the other growin' things, or the landscape features. Humans put wild critters into wild settin's without seein' to bone-head-simple precautions, humans go into the realm of wild critters without takin' the simplest, bone-headed precautions - and then when wild comes afoul of human, the human blames the wild. That is stupid.
Don't know much about bears but I do remember just a few years ago in my neck of the rocky mountains of southern colorado there was this fellow lived alone in his cabin and a black bear came to visit one day (for lunch it seems) and kept coming back all winter for a snack now and then. In the spring some hikers found a few bones scattered about. This cabin was just a few miles south of the metropolis of Guffy Colorado where I summered a few head of herefords.
timberlandko wrote:
... Humans put wild critters into wild settin's without seein' to bone-head-simple precautions, humans go into the realm of wild critters without takin' the simplest, bone-headed precautions - and then when wild comes afoul of human, the human blames the wild. That is stupid.
I'm not blaming the wolves. I'm blaming the idiot greens and leftists who brought Canadian wolves into the south 48 where they were not needed or wanted.
Turning Canadian wolves loose in areas where other people live is basically uncivilized conduct.
There is no such thing as a scientific rationale for uncivilized conduct. That's the kind of bullshit which Hitler preached.
Wunnner which is worse - bein' consumed by wolves or hatred?
Timber, the perfection of that line needs public regognition. You get the "Joe NAtion" memorial, "I couldnt put it any words simpler" AWARD.
Gunga, when I go hiking I carry some special lethal sauce(1080) , mostly for hillbillies, if Im really threatened. Ive never carried a gun on the AT and Ive been on it several times in the MAine wilderness.Ive also been on the Pacific trail gunless I have a really nice Sig Sauer P220 .45 and a POS High Power but Id never carry em in the woods. If youve ever hiked long distances , even a walkman is excess weight, let alone a pistol in your butt holster.
Timber, Im going to Ungava Lake this late spring to fish for Dollies and char and Im aware of the late Polar Bear problems. Id never wanna tangle with one of them.I think our guide will be packing.
gungasnake wrote:Montana wrote:I agree with you there gunga, I know I wouldn't go into the deep woods without a gun. Far too many things can happen when you're in wild animal territory. I would never shoot any animal unless it was to defend someone from an attack.
What about if you were really, really, really hungry, and there was no grocery store or fast food outlet within 1000 miles?
That's a tough question. I can say now that I would rather starve to death before killing any animal, but I couldn't know what I'd do unless I was in that situation.
Montana wrote:I know, I'd eat fish :-)
Fish are animals.....
Nonetheless, the original human diet had to have been some combinatino of fruit and shellfish. Humans are not thick enough to be herbivores, i.e. we physically cannot eat enough.
You do not need to be an evolutionist to understand that Elaine Morgan is almost certainly correct in thinking that humans originally lived in water, which would have had to be some relatively shallow and safe area which was somehow protected from sea monsters, and that they ate shellfish and came up on shore for fruit which grew untended.
Morgans two major books are 'The Aquatic Ape' and 'Scars of Evolution' which, again to me at least, are worth reading despite the lip service to evolutionism.
As Morgan notes, humans share several scores of traits with the aquatic mammals and with nothing else on the planet. Having our legs be the major limbs for instance is an obvious adaptation for swimming and wading. On all apes and monkeys, the arms are the major limbs.
Yeah, fish are animals, but that's what I'd eat.
Scratching my head on everything else you wrote. You lost me on your point.
farmerman wrote:
I have a really nice Sig Sauer P220 .45 and a POS High Power but Id never carry em in the woods. If youve ever hiked long distances , even a walkman is excess weight, let alone a pistol in your butt holster.
For what it's worth...
It is possible to kill bears with a large automatic but you'd be better off with the 44mag revolver. The difference between 45 acp and 44mag is the difference between a 200+ grain bullet moving at 800 fps vs 1200 - 1400 fps.
All normal automatics operate much the same way, i.e. blowback, and were meant to provide soldiers in firefights the ability to reload by slapping another magazine into the pistol. The drawback is that all you have to contain pressure is the back end of a metal tube, therefore automatics cannot sustain the kinds of pressure which revolvers can, the cylindar of a revolver being a much heavier and stronger piece of steel. Moreover the cartridge cases for auto calibers are shorter than typical revolver cartridge cases to facilitate the action of the automatic. The only exceptions to this rule are things like the Israeli 44mag autos and the old 44 automag which are basically rifle mechanisms (i.e. gas/piston operated) in handguns.
Montana wrote:Yeah, fish are animals, but that's what I'd eat.
Scratching my head on everything else you wrote. You lost me on your point.
Just that if you really want to go back to nature you need to be eating shellfish and fruit.
One thing I'll never understand is women trying to force kids to eat green vegetables. I mean, the whole world knows that a little kid's reaction to alcohol and tobacco is correct; why would anybody think that same kid's reaction to green vegetables was wrong? When something tastes bad, your body is trying to tell you something.
