Black bear attacks mountain biker in Washington State park

On 6-Sep-2007, You wrote:

While black bear attacks on humans are rather rare, as a carnivore,

actually Black Bears are Omnivores....

More precisely, black bears are in the Class Mammalia, Order Carnivora
(carnivores they have for instance a carnasial pair), Family Ursidae and yes
their diet is omnivorous, but they are classified as a carnivore. Ther is
no order Ominivore it refers to a diet not a taxonomic group.

Puppet_Sock writes:

On Sep 6, 12:12 am, (Bill Z.) wrote:
[snip]
One black-bear related injury that occurred in Yosemite was due to
some guy hanging his food from the limb of a tree and pitching a
tent right below it. A bear cub went out on the limb to try to
get it, fell off, and landed on the guy, breaking some ribs.

I should know better than to read the news groups in the office.
Now I have to explain the noise I made when I read that.
Socks

..... yeah, it is pretty funny - and I heard the story from one of
the rangers, not some random person.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 18:24:52 GMT, wrote:


On 6-Sep-2007, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 22:53:04 GMT, wrote:

Mike, your ignorance of wildlife and factless statements become
irritating.
While black bear attacks on humans are rather rare, as a carnivore, they
can
and do attack humans from time to time. The probability of an attack is
measured in the 1 to 400 million or more (given the number of
recreational
visitor days a year in black bear country). The motivation for the
attack
can range from protecting cubs (and yes I would suggest this is one of
the
more common reasons), to being startled or surprised by human (usually
hikers on a trail) appearing in their path, to viewing humans as a
competitor (i.e., protecting a food source) to even viewing humans in
very
rare cases as a form of food (what appears to have happen in Utah).

I doubt it. He peobably smelled human food on & near the boy. Did the
bear eat the whole kid?

He had fed on the kid but was killed before he devoured him.

It would be easy to determine if he was prey, but I suspect that the
research has never been done and never will be done: coat one boy with
honey (or any other human food) and another boy with none. See which
one the bear "attacks". I'll bet it would be the former, proving that
we are not prey. Since you cite no such research, I suspect that you
are just giving your OPINION, as usual.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:25:03 -0700, y_p_w wrote:

On Sep 6, 8:33 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 22:05:35 -0700, y_p_w wrote:
On Sep 4, 9:19 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:46:48 wrote:
On Sep 4, 2:29 pm, Bruce Jensen wrote:
On Sep 4, 1:46 wrote:

WTF?

Tell that to the family in Utah whose 11 year old was dragged out of
their tent and killed in June by a male black bear. Male black bears
aren't known for being protective of their cubs. Some are known to
attack cubs, which could include their own young.

Yeah, but we are not at this point talking specfiically about a male
or female bear. There is a reasonable chance that the bear in
question was a female with cubs, based on other testimony. At the
very least, it was surprised.

The Utah incident above also involved some questionable human-food
handling, IIRC.

Sure. However - the attack was for a different reason than a black
bear sow defending its cubs.

I don't know that that was an "attack". It was probably simply
following the smell of food.

Dragging an 11 year old 400 yards from a tent was an attack.

BS. He was taking what he thought was food to his picnic area. If he
wanted to "attack" the kid, there would be no need to move him.

Possibly



one that could have been avoided, but still an attack. Bears have
been known to claw/bite people if they think they can get food.

I notice that you haven't offered any other reason for a black bear to
attack a human, even though you say there are such reasons.

Are you freaking kidding me? They'll attack when startled. I've read
of numerous incidents where someone was clawed or bitten when a bear
was surprised by a person while it was going through garbage/food. My
favorite stories are about idiots feeding bears that just turned on
them. Some attacks have been seemly random, like the Cherokee
National Forest mauling in 2006. That was just a family on the trail,
attacked by a male bear. It was also exceedingly rare.

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_87516.asp

I posted this earlier, but I guess it's not valid if it doesn't
validate your ill-advised statements:

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/news/issues/be...incidents.html

"Los Angeles County, July 2003 - A male hiker was knocked down by a
bear at a remote campsite along the Pacific Crest Trail in the Angeles
National Forest. The hiker had just reached the camp, which was empty,
dropped his pack on a picnic table, and was looking for a place to
hang his food. As he walked back toward the pack, he heard a noise
behind him. As he turned he was knocked to the ground by a bear. After
standing over him for a few seconds, the bear grabbed the backpack and
began dragging it off. The man shouted at the bear and threw rocks
until the bear finally retreated without the backpack. The hiker
received only minor bruises and was not seriously hurt.

Los Angeles County, July 2001 - A woman was bitten on the arm by a
bear at a county-run tree farm near La Verne. The bear, which was
earlier spotted climbing on a nearby trash can, reportedly walked up
to the woman while she was seated at a picnic table and bit her on the
arm. The woman was treated at a hospital for puncture wounds. The bear
was later shot and killed by Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies.
The bear weighed approximately 85 pounds and was estimated at one to
two years of age.

Trinity County, May 1986 - A 35-year old man was attacked at around 3
a.m. while camping in a tent in the Trinity Alps Wilderness. The
victim felt that he was caught in the middle of a fight between two
boars when one bear attacked him in his tent. The bear left when the
victim hit the bear with a tentpole. Two bears then returned and acted
aggressively toward each another before they finally left. The victim
sustained several puncture wounds to his shoulder and lacerations to
the back of his head.

Siskiyou County, September 1986 - A long-time resident of a small
rural community was injured while feeding a bear at his residence. The
victim had been feeding bears at this location for more than 30
years."

So that's just incidental to feeding (getting competitors for the food
out of the way). It's not an "attack" on a person.

Knocking/clawing/biting someone to get to food is still an attack,
even if just part of a plan to secure food. If someone punches/clubs
another person in order to steal a wallet, is that not an "attack"?
There are also plenty of documented incidents of bears injuring/
attacking people where there was no food being fought over nor cubs to
defend.

And I see you have no answer for the 2006 Cherokee National Forest
black bear attack. Again - male bear. No food being raided.

http://www.southeasternoutdoors.com/...ar-attack.html

Here's a known predatory attack:

http://www.southeasternoutdoors.com/...ar-attack.html

"Subsequent necropsies preformed at the University of Tennessee
confirmed that both bears the rangers killed had fed on Ms. Bradley
and were most likely the bears that had killed her. The bears were not
emaciated and the necropsies did not reveal any underlying health
issues with the bears that may have contributed to the attack. This
lead officials to believe the attack was a predatory."

Certainly I'm not trying to employ any scare tactics against people
visiting the woods. Incidents like this are extremely rare, but I'm
not going to sit by while the completely wrong statement "It's a well-
known fact that black bears don't attack humans, except to defend
their cubs." is passed on as the truth.

Statistically, it's true.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman wrote:
Certainly I'm not trying to employ any scare tactics against people
visiting the woods. Incidents like this are extremely rare, but I'm
not going to sit by while the completely wrong statement "It's a well-
known fact that black bears don't attack humans, except to defend
their cubs." is passed on as the truth.

Statistically, it's true.

Statistically, it is clearly a false statement.

Black bears do *not* attack a human in defense of cubs.
But if they attack, it is very likely to be with intent
to *eat* a human.

From a long list of characteristics, the last one listed
at http://www.bear.org/Black/Black_Bear_Facts.html is

Greatest misconception:

The greatest misconception about black bears is that
they are likely to attack people in defense of cubs.
They are highly unlikely to do this. Black bear
researchers often capture screaming cubs in the
presence of bluff-charging mothers with no attacks.
Defense of cubs is a grizzly bear trait. About 70
percent of human deaths from grizzly bears are from
mothers defending cubs, but black bear mothers have
not been known to kill anyone in defense of cubs.

Read that line again "not been know to kill anyone in
defense of cubs."

From 2000 to 2007 there have been 15 people killed by
black bears in North America. Of those, 7 (including
three children) were clearly predatory attacks. Just
more than half, 8 of the 15, cannot positively be
identified as an attack with intent to eat the victim.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On 7-Sep-2007, Mike Vandeman wrote:

He had fed on the kid but was killed before he devoured him.

It would be easy to determine if he was prey, but I suspect that the
research has never been done and never will be done: coat one boy with
honey (or any other human food) and another boy with none. See which
one the bear "attacks". I'll bet it would be the former, proving that
we are not prey. Since you cite no such research, I suspect that you
are just giving your OPINION, as usual.
--

Yes an opinion as a predator ecologist with 30 years experience studying
large predators
and human/predator conflicts. This opinion is also one that represents a
broad concesus within the scientific community. The largest problem with
lay persons
such as yourself, is that you advocate single explanations (which are rare),
e.g., (and I paraphrase) "bears attack
people to protect their cubs or they mistake us for food)". If you had
taken the trouble
to study the data bases of bear maulings, it will become clear that bear
attacks (like cougar
attacks, shark attacks, grizzly bear attacks) happen for a number of
reasons. There may be a
predominate reason but never a sinlge reason. Black bears while
ominivorous, are very
capable predators and regular eat meat when available. You misunderstand
science to
believe that experiments are the only way we gain knowldge. The late Ernst
Mayer, the Harvard evolutionary
biologist (and one the great scientist of the 20 century) once noted that
the vast majority of our scientific
knowldge has come not from experiments, but from observational studies
(e.g., Darwin's work).

Thus, those of us that study large predators and have investigated attacks
by predators on humans
have discovered that predators can and do attack us for a variety of reasons
- not just one. Large mammals are
intelligent beings (great capacity for learning) and as Teddy Roosevelt once
noted for the cougar, they are
all individuals with unique attributes and while we average their use of the
landscape or behavioral response to stimuli in
their environment, they all act somewhat differently and sometimes wildly
different.

So while we (as to most of the responders) all agree that black bear attacks
are rare (very rare in fact),
the motivation for these attacks are varied. In some cases we have good
information and can reasonably
surmise the motivation behind the attack and in others we are left with a
significant amount of
uncertainity and cannot. In all things biological, there is always some
level of uncertainity as we never really
know the truth. Modern science is based on Popperian logic, we disprove
hypotheses and never prove them.
There is always some doubt we have it right (why we know you can never be a
scientist as you never doubt
you preach, badly I might add). So I reitterate, we do not need experiments
to make reasonable inferences
regarding the motivation behind some attacks, and in some cases we will
never know.

Keep deluded yourself Mike.

On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 23:17:39 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
Certainly I'm not trying to employ any scare tactics against people
visiting the woods. Incidents like this are extremely rare, but I'm
not going to sit by while the completely wrong statement "It's a well-
known fact that black bears don't attack humans, except to defend
their cubs." is passed on as the truth.

Statistically, it's true.

Statistically, it is clearly a false statement.

Black bears do *not* attack a human in defense of cubs.
But if they attack, it is very likely to be with intent
to *eat* a human.

From a long list of characteristics, the last one listed
at http://www.bear.org/Black/Black_Bear_Facts.html is

Greatest misconception:

The greatest misconception about black bears is that
they are likely to attack people in defense of cubs.
They are highly unlikely to do this. Black bear
researchers often capture screaming cubs in the
presence of bluff-charging mothers with no attacks.
Defense of cubs is a grizzly bear trait. About 70
percent of human deaths from grizzly bears are from
mothers defending cubs, but black bear mothers have
not been known to kill anyone in defense of cubs.

Read that line again "not been know to kill anyone in
defense of cubs."

From 2000 to 2007 there have been 15 people killed by
black bears in North America. Of those, 7 (including
three children) were clearly predatory attacks. Just
more than half, 8 of the 15, cannot positively be
identified as an attack with intent to eat the victim.

Is this relevant? Bears still should not be killed. They are only
doing what comes naturally to them, in THEIR habitat. Humans have no
business invading the bear's habitat, ESPECIALLY if it causes harm to
either party.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 13:29:00 GMT, wrote:


On 7-Sep-2007, Mike Vandeman wrote:

He had fed on the kid but was killed before he devoured him.

It would be easy to determine if he was prey, but I suspect that the
research has never been done and never will be done: coat one boy with
honey (or any other human food) and another boy with none. See which
one the bear "attacks". I'll bet it would be the former, proving that
we are not prey. Since you cite no such research, I suspect that you
are just giving your OPINION, as usual.
--

Yes an opinion as a predator ecologist with 30 years experience studying
large predators
and human/predator conflicts. This opinion is also one that represents a
broad concesus within the scientific community. The largest problem with
lay persons
such as yourself, is that you advocate single explanations (which are rare),
e.g., (and I paraphrase) "bears attack
people to protect their cubs or they mistake us for food)". If you had
taken the trouble
to study the data bases of bear maulings, it will become clear that bear
attacks (like cougar
attacks, shark attacks, grizzly bear attacks) happen for a number of
reasons. There may be a
predominate reason but never a sinlge reason. Black bears while
ominivorous, are very
capable predators and regular eat meat when available. You misunderstand
science to
believe that experiments are the only way we gain knowldge. The late Ernst
Mayer, the Harvard evolutionary
biologist (and one the great scientist of the 20 century) once noted that
the vast majority of our scientific
knowldge has come not from experiments, but from observational studies
(e.g., Darwin's work).

You completely miss the point. Observation provides DATA, but only an
experiment can determine causes, because only a controlled experiment
can separate out the various impinging factors.

Thus, those of us that study large predators and have investigated attacks
by predators on humans
have discovered that predators can and do attack us for a variety of reasons
- not just one. Large mammals are
intelligent beings (great capacity for learning) and as Teddy Roosevelt once
noted for the cougar, they are
all individuals with unique attributes and while we average their use of the
landscape or behavioral response to stimuli in
their environment, they all act somewhat differently and sometimes wildly
different.

So while we (as to most of the responders) all agree that black bear attacks
are rare (very rare in fact),
the motivation for these attacks are varied. In some cases we have good
information and can reasonably
surmise the motivation behind the attack and in others we are left with a
significant amount of
uncertainity and cannot. In all things biological, there is always some
level of uncertainity as we never really
know the truth.

Mostly because you refuse to use the scientific method, and do
EXPERIMENTS.

Modern science is based on Popperian logic, we disprove
hypotheses and never prove them.
There is always some doubt we have it right (why we know you can never be a
scientist as you never doubt
you preach, badly I might add). So I reitterate, we do not need experiments
to make reasonable inferences
regarding the motivation behind some attacks, and in some cases we will
never know.

Keep deluded yourself Mike.

Your utter lack of understanding of the scientific method is duly
noted. You pass off your opinions as facts, and never investigate
farther. This is exactly why biology has remained so far behind
physics and chemistry and still has to qualify every statement with
words like "might" and "perhaps".
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

writes:

On 7-Sep-2007, Mike Vandeman wrote:

He had fed on the kid but was killed before he devoured him.

It would be easy to determine if he was prey, but I suspect that
the research has never been done and never will be done: coat one
boy with honey (or any other human food) and another boy with
none. See which one the bear "attacks". I'll bet it would be the
former, proving that we are not prey. Since you cite no such
research, I suspect that you are just giving your OPINION, as
usual.

Yes an opinion as a predator ecologist with 30 years experience
studying large predators and human/predator conflicts. This opinion
is also one that represents a broad concesus within the scientific
community. snip

Thus, those of us that study large predators and have investigated
attacks by predators on humans have discovered that predators can
and do attack us for a variety of reasons - not just one. Large
mammals are intelligent beings (great capacity for learning) and as
Teddy Roosevelt once noted for the cougar, they are all individuals
with unique attributes and while we average their use of the
landscape or behavioral response to stimuli in their environment,
they all act somewhat differently and sometimes wildly different.

If I remember correctly, there were some bear-related injuries in
Yosemite due to people storing their food in their tents, or where
someone (probably a child) went to bed with chocolate or some similar
food smeared on his or her face. That obviously complicates the
picture - what was the bear trying to get for food and did it attack
someone as prey, or due to being surprised, or because the person was
startled and seemed to be attacking the bear? Regardless, we don't
seem to be popular items on the black bears' menus - they seem to be
spending their time discovering how to break into various containers
rather than in trying to figure out how to catch us.

Some of it can be pretty comical. Tourists (mostly) would try to
scare bears away from the campgrounds by banging pots. My friends and
I would joke that the bears probably hear the pot banging and
interpret it as "food's ready; come and get it". After all, the
people who don't have any food with them typically don't have pots to
bang. After watching this many times, I can assure you that the pot
banging does not scare away the bears, who at worst (best?) just view
the campground as a noisy restaurant with relatively good service. :-)

If you really want some amusement regarding MV, though, read his
strongly held opinion last year about how cell phone towers are
causing a massive reduction in the bee population (as he totally
ignores more likely causes such as a virus that seems to be related in
some way to the decline).



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 23:17:39 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Read that line again "not been know to kill anyone in
defense of cubs."

From 2000 to 2007 there have been 15 people killed by
black bears in North America. Of those, 7 (including
three children) were clearly predatory attacks. Just
more than half, 8 of the 15, cannot positively be
identified as an attack with intent to eat the victim.

Is this relevant?

Information correctly your false statements is relevant
to the thread.

It is true however that you post is not relevant
discussion.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)