Black bear attacks mountain biker in Washington State park

You really do lack reading comprehension and your memory sucks. This entire
thread
started with you surmising incorrectly about why black bears attack people -
based
not on one shred of evidence to support your silly notions and a complete
and total
lack of the scientific lit on this subject. No you are sad and pathetic,
and mainly
delusional. Since it is you how has offered a viewpoint not
support by the evidence or literature and is inconsistent with the general
consensus,
I challenge you to come up with evidence that would require the scientific
community to change its mind - you may want to save your effort because you
have not credibility with scientists and you will fail miserably like you
always do.

Oh, if you do not understand consensus, talk to climate scientist to get a
refresher,
it is the very issue that has been driving the scientific bus that has
concluded that humans
are largely responsible for the current warming trend - but I guess you do
believe
global warming is a hoax also (also, the majority of our grasp of the
problem comes not from
experiments, but from observational data (such as ice cores).

Dude you need professional help.

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 03:39:39 GMT, wrote:

You really do lack reading comprehension and your memory sucks. This entire
thread
started with you surmising incorrectly about why black bears attack people -
based
not on one shred of evidence to support your silly notions and a complete
and total
lack of the scientific lit on this subject. No you are sad and pathetic,
and mainly
delusional. Since it is you how has offered a viewpoint not
support by the evidence or literature and is inconsistent with the general
consensus,
I challenge you to come up with evidence that would require the scientific
community to change its mind - you may want to save your effort because you
have not credibility with scientists and you will fail miserably like you
always do.

Oh, if you do not understand consensus, talk to climate scientist to get a
refresher,
it is the very issue that has been driving the scientific bus that has
concluded that humans
are largely responsible for the current warming trend - but I guess you do
believe
global warming is a hoax also (also, the majority of our grasp of the
problem comes not from
experiments, but from observational data (such as ice cores).

Dude you need professional help.

Very unprofessional of you: you aren't qualified to judge that, which
leads one to suspect that you aren't qualified for much of ANYTHING.

Your continued effort to change the subject is duly noted. For your
information, "consensus" of OPINION is irrelevant. The consensus is
often wrong. Remember, the consensus once was that the sun revolves
around the Earth.
--
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 9-Sep-2007, Mike Vandeman wrote:

our continued effort to change the subject is duly noted. For your
information, "consensus" of OPINION is irrelevant. The consensus is
often wrong. Remember, the consensus once was that the sun revolves
around the Earth.


Priceless, changing the subject is your most famous (and usually very
clumsy)
move.

tell climate scientist about consensus - you are stooopid.

Mike Vandeman wrote in
:

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.

Mike,
We finally have a subject where we agree. The bear should not be
killed.

But....... You were wrong in your statement "It's a well known
fact that black bears don't attack humans, except to defend their cubs."





--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Mike Vandeman wrote in
:

On 13 Sep 2007 15:02:04 GMT, Chris
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote in
m:

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.

Mike,
We finally have a subject where we agree. The bear should not be
killed.

Thanks. Did you do anything to prevent that?

I did exactly the same thing you did. Nothing! Nice job Mike.



But....... You were wrong in your statement "It's a well known
fact that black bears don't attack humans, except to defend their
cubs."

Okay.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On 13 Sep 2007 15:02:04 GMT, Chris
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote in
:

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.

Mike,
We finally have a subject where we agree. The bear should not be
killed.

Thanks. Did you do anything to prevent that?

But....... You were wrong in your statement "It's a well known
fact that black bears don't attack humans, except to defend their cubs."

Okay.
--
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

Chris wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:
Chris wrote:

Mike,
We finally have a subject where we agree. The bear should not be
killed.

Thanks. Did you do anything to prevent that?

I did exactly the same thing you did. Nothing! Nice job Mike.


But....... You were wrong in your statement "It's a well known
fact that black bears don't attack humans, except to defend their
cubs."

Okay.

Unfortunately, you are both wrong. The bear should be
killed. That is an unfortunate tragedy, but life is not
necessarily nice.

Bears are not terribly bright compared to humans, they
do not often reason out what works and what
doesn't... they mostly learn by repetition and form
habits to go along with instinct. Instinct tells them
that humans are scary things that they should stay away
from. But it takes just about exactly 1 instance where
that is proven wrong for a bear to become habituated
towards attacking rather than fleeing from a human.

Whether it is the bear's fault that such a situation was
presented to it, is immaterial. Whether it is the
bear's fault that it is not smart enough to reason out
that one example is not proof that attacking humans is
safe, is immaterial.

The fact is that an *intelligent* human *can* reason out
the fact that the bear is now very likely to be a
significant danger to humans. The only safe action for
humans is to kill that particular bear.

(Soooo... we now can change the subject slightly, and
instead of discusing bears we can take an intelligence
test... 50-50 says no more than one of you passes...)

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

On Sep 14, 2:20 pm, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
Chris wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:
Chris wrote:

Mike,
We finally have a subject where we agree. The bear should not be
killed.

Thanks. Did you do anything to prevent that?

I did exactly the same thing you did. Nothing! Nice job Mike.

But....... You were wrong in your statement "It's a well known
fact that black bears don't attack humans, except to defend their
cubs."

Okay.

Unfortunately, you are both wrong. The bear should be
killed. That is an unfortunate tragedy, but life is not
necessarily nice.

Bears are not terribly bright compared to humans, they
do not often reason out what works and what
doesn't... they mostly learn by repetition and form
habits to go along with instinct. Instinct tells them
that humans are scary things that they should stay away
from. But it takes just about exactly 1 instance where
that is proven wrong for a bear to become habituated
towards attacking rather than fleeing from a human.

Personally, I think they are intelligent as far as non-human animals
go. Many believe they can problem solve. I love the stories of
particular bears that learned to recognize a particular model of car,
and from that point became known as "Camaro Bear" or "VB Bug Bear" for
their practice and expertise, before meeting their demise.

Whether it is the bear's fault that such a situation was
presented to it, is immaterial. Whether it is the
bear's fault that it is not smart enough to reason out
that one example is not proof that attacking humans is
safe, is immaterial.

I think the key is that bears don't really have a "moral compass" like
we'd hope humans would. A bear is looking after its own interests,
and frankly has no concept of "theft" or "injury".

The fact is that an *intelligent* human *can* reason out
the fact that the bear is now very likely to be a
significant danger to humans. The only safe action for
humans is to kill that particular bear.

That I agree with. Bears are wonderful creatures, but a bear that has
shown the propensity to injure people should be put down. It's
something I would have wished had never gotten to that point.

On 14 Sep 2007 15:50:27 GMT, Chris
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote in
:

On 13 Sep 2007 15:02:04 GMT, Chris
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote in
:

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.

Mike,
We finally have a subject where we agree. The bear should not be
killed.

Thanks. Did you do anything to prevent that?

I did exactly the same thing you did. Nothing! Nice job Mike.

Speak for yourself. I actually called the authorities and asked them
not to kill the bear. Can't you hypocrites EVER tell the truth?

But....... You were wrong in your statement "It's a well known
fact that black bears don't attack humans, except to defend their
cubs."

Okay.
--
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 Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:20:24 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Chris wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:
Chris wrote:

Mike,
We finally have a subject where we agree. The bear should not be
killed.

Thanks. Did you do anything to prevent that?

I did exactly the same thing you did. Nothing! Nice job Mike.


But....... You were wrong in your statement "It's a well known
fact that black bears don't attack humans, except to defend their
cubs."

Okay.

Unfortunately, you are both wrong. The bear should be
killed. That is an unfortunate tragedy, but life is not
necessarily nice.

Bears are not terribly bright compared to humans, they
do not often reason out what works and what
doesn't... they mostly learn by repetition and form
habits to go along with instinct. Instinct tells them
that humans are scary things that they should stay away
from.

Sounds like they are familiar with mountain bikers.

But it takes just about exactly 1 instance where
that is proven wrong for a bear to become habituated
towards attacking rather than fleeing from a human.

Whether it is the bear's fault that such a situation was
presented to it, is immaterial. Whether it is the
bear's fault that it is not smart enough to reason out
that one example is not proof that attacking humans is
safe, is immaterial.

The fact is that an *intelligent* human *can* reason out
the fact that the bear is now very likely to be a
significant danger to humans. The only safe action for
humans is to kill that particular bear.

BS. If you are so smart, you should be able to figure out that ALL
bears are dangerous, and so you should stay out of their habitat. DUH!

(Soooo... we now can change the subject slightly, and
instead of discusing bears we can take an intelligence
test... 50-50 says no more than one of you passes...)

Sounds like you just failed.
--
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