September 22, 2018

Bursting the Bubble of “Normal” Bear Behavior

If anyone might be interested to return to my seemingly endless commentary on bear behavior and bear attacks, they would discover that I’m a broken record when it comes to the sickening echo chamber of “bears don’t ‘normally’ act that way” and “bears don’t ‘normally’ attack people for no reason.” etc. And of course the most childish of all lame comments, “Bears are more afraid of you than you are of them.”

It never ends. When children don’t act the way we WANT them to, or what the indoctrination institutions and doctors consider “normal” behavior, we feed them chemicals to alter that behavior to make them “normal.”

“Normal” is a subjective issue that we have willingly given over to centralized authority and as such are slaves to their perspective of normal. Whatever doesn’t fit the “normal” mold is left either unexplained or simply passed off as an anomaly regardless of the frequency of not normal (by chosen perspective) behavior.

We can’t harness and drug bears. Instead, we insist on sticking to human-projected behavior patterns, framed around the bio-perverse obsession with protecting wild animals (large predators like bears) even at the expense of human life. In short, we want animals to be human-like and therefore project human characteristics onto animals.

A recent attack by two bears in Wyoming on a guide and his client has created a bit of a stir. The Media including Social Media and Internet websites have, once again, revealed to us the very reason we should NEVER believe ANYTHING we read on their platforms. Written accounts of the event have proven over and over to be inaccurate and yet the bad information gets embellished and passed along – and worst believed.

The brain trust – those who know more about everything than anyone else and has an “expert” opinion – have provided all the answers to any question asked and even those that haven’t.

In all of this, once again we are subjected to the vomit of the Media as they try to choke back their regurgitated nonsensical misinformation about bear behavior – and refuse to change.

I read this evening in the Newscentermaine.com website how we will probably never know why these two bears attacked two men attempting to retrieve a dead elk. The entire article is rife with terrible information that is formulated in the manner in which I described at the beginning of this piece.

Based mostly on the perverse need, having been indoctrinated into the minds of most American’s these days, to paint a completely positive aura about bears and other large predators, officials, brainwashed in their strong delusion that “bears don’t normally act this way,” now want to tell us we’ll never know why these bears attacked. Could it be that they attacked because they are BEARS??? Geez!

Here is a laundry list of nonsense repeated in this Online Media article:

“Wyoming wildlife officials say we may never know why a grizzly bear and her cub killed a hunting guide in an unusual and unprovoked attack.”

We are to believe that this attack was “unusual” because it doesn’t nicely and conveniently fit the narrative used to protect large predators. We are also to believe the attack was “unprovoked.” Try to understand how stupid that statement is. Because we refuse to understand that all animal behavior is unpredictable, this attack is called “unprovoked.” Obviously, something provoked the bears to attack, even if they were provoked by the simple fact that they are wild, unpredictable, large animals. Geez!

“We’re very fortunate that bears usually behave like bears should… But there are occasions where bears don’t behave like other bears.”

Once again, we are supposed to believe their inconsistent mantra that bears’ behavior is “normal” and predictable.

“Grizzlies don’t typically attack humans like that…”

Says who? Well, the authorities, that’s who. They don’t want anyone to have any ill feelings toward grizzly bears so they repeatedly tell us bears are afraid of us and are harmless except if you “surprise” them or meddle with cubs. B.S.!!! They even tell us bears are so harmless we can effectively protect ourselves by arming ourselves with bear spray – the same bear spray the guide used and died anyway. And note these same authorities who want you to carry bear spray so you won’t harm bears had to kill the same bear that attacked the guide and hunter with a rifle. Hmmm.

“Attacks are more commonly associated with either a surprise encounter… or if the bears were defending their food.”

None of my comments are intended to tell people this information about bear behavior isn’t true – it is just incomplete and saturated with the human condition foisted onto an animal. Each and every time authorities go out of their way, and the press becomes their echo chamber, to tell us how RARE it is that a bear, a wolf, a fox, a mountain lion, a bobcat – you name the animal – attacks someone, it’s unusual and not “normal” behavior. The truth is they don’t know what’s normal or abnormal behavior. If it fits their determined narrative, then it must be “normal.” Anything outside of that convenient narrative is just “unexplained,” as though it never happens but once in a million years. And yet we are always reading about those “unusual” and not “normal” attacks on people while refusing to change our understanding of wild animal behavior and do and say responsible things like, “______ attacks are considered to be not man-created normal behavior. All animals, wild and domestic can be and are unpredictable. You should always approach every animal in every situation as though just about anything will happen…including one of those ‘unprovoked’ attacks.”

But I’m not holding my breath waiting for them to change what they say.

Share

The Gun Didn’t Work Excuse Won’t Fly

Arm chairing the unfortunate event in a Wyoming forest…

All right here we go… Bring on the donkey… Now the predator cult are claiming the gun didn’t work either.. Uh huh…

“And we can also look at the bear spray/gun debate. Actually neither worked as the bear spray was not utilized in time, and the gun could not be fired, at least from accounts provided. We weren’t there, so the chaos that was experienced by men and bears likely something none of us will ever experience.”—Immer Treue

The gun would have to be in the possession of a skilled shootist to have not worked in this situation.. Not in his back pack some yards away from his position.. The client failed to control his panic.. Then throwing the gun away.. And running away…

Speaking from experience most of the clients that can’t go into the back country on their own and get it done on their own are greenhorns who want to go home with an elk so they can brag to their greenhorn friends and appear to be modern day Davey Crocket’s rather than what they really are, babes being baby sat in the woods.. This particular client tossed away the best defense they had and ran off to dial 9/11…

 

Share

The Bear Spray That Didn’t Work

It was November 15, 2007, when I wrote an article on my former blog titled, “Bear Spray Versus Bullets.” This article came at a time when government authorities and members of so-called conservation groups (environmentalists) were claiming that bear spray was a better deterrent to saving your life than a gun when being attacked by a bear – specifically a grizzly bear. This difference of opinion has never really been resolved and probably won’t be.

I recall that it was only a couple days after I published that article I got a phone call from one of those “authorities” who was pushing the bear spray for protection meme. I assumed, and still do, this person had a financial stake in bear spray among other personal agenda reasons.

Regardless, I agreed to give him my mailing address and he promptly sent me a garbage pail full of propaganda that upon reading no more convinced me that spray was better than bullets than playing in the middle of Interstate 81 in Pennsylvania would be.

Most have heard by now that an experienced guide and an elk hunter were attacked by two grizzly bears in Wyoming. Both men were heading back into the woods to retrieve an elk the hunter had downed. The guide, Mark Uptain, was killed in the attack. The hunter was injured but not with life-threatening injuries. Exactly what happened at the scene remains to be known.

As is typical, reports as to what happened began making their rounds and what is also typical many of those reports turned out to be false. However, according to a report published in Ammoland, one thing is certain: “Mark Uptain appears to have relied on a can of bear spray to deter the attack. A can of bear spray, with the safety off, was found at the site. The adult sow grizzly had bear spray on her at the scene.”

So, the guide discharged his bear spray, and it got on the bear (although this report doesn’t say what part of the bear had spray on it, one would assume that bear spray placed anywhere except the face would be ineffective.)

Again, we come back to the burning question as to which is more effective in warding off a charging bear – spray or bullets. Maybe the real answer is contained in this same article: “The bear was shot and killed as she attacked investigating Fish and Wildlife personnel.”

It certainly looks like that while authorities were at the scene investigating this event, at least one of the two bears attacked Fish and Wildlife personnel. Why, as I pointed out in my 2007 article that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was heavily promoting spray over bullets, didn’t the FWS officials whip out their cans of bear spray and ward off that attacking bear? Did officials even have bear spray with them? Whether they intended to kill the two bears or not should have been of little concern. How did investigators know this particular bear was the bear that attacked and killed Mark Uptain?

Obviously, the agents doing the investigation believe bullets are better than spray.

Unfortunately, we now have evidence that in this one incident bear spray did not save one man’s life.

Perhaps it is time to revisit the irresponsible claims that spray is better than bullets. As I said in 2007, it depends upon many circumstances and each person has to decide for themselves how to protect themselves. Unfortunately, our own government is doing all that they can to force us to do it their way. Not necessarily the way they would and do it but how the government demands we do it.

The big question then should be this: If bear pepper spray is better for warding off an attacking bear, why did a government official(s) use a gun to do the job?

 

Share

Authorities Kill Two Grizzlies Thought to Have Killed a Wyoming Guide and Wounded a Hunter

As a result of a grizzly bear attack on two men in Wyoming attending to their elk kill, authorities have killed two grizzlies in response. A necropsy might determine if they are the bears responsible.

However, the media and the animal rights advocates who control it took the opportunity to further promote lies about the grizzly bear and its history.

According to a report published by Newscentermaine that came from USA Today, an advocate for the bears states: “…to protect the last of the tens of thousands of bears who used to roam the territory between the Pacific Ocean and the Great Plains.”

There’s plenty wrong with this statement. First of all, the person quoted refers to the grizzly bears in human terms when they state “bears WHO used to roam.” Bears are not whos. They are animals. A proper usage of our language would be “bears THAT used to roam.”

I also take issue with the statement that there were tens of thousands of grizzly bears that roamed the territory from the Pacific to the Great Plains.

I don’t believe there are “tens of thousands” of bears roaming that region today, but certainly, there are thousands with advocates doing all they can to bring the grizzly population to hundreds of thousands if they could. The difference that exists today vs when, according to some, tens of thousands of bears roamed is that there are millions more people living in this area than did when supposedly tens of thousands of bears did.

But did tens of thousands of grizzly bears ever exist in this region? My reasoning and logical conclusions tell a different story. If there were tens of thousands of grizzly bears in this region as is stated when Lewis and Clark undertook their exploration, it would seem that their journals would have contained stories of bear encounters.

If my memory is correct (and it hasn’t been that long since I read the journals last) there is one incident recorded of a man in the expedition who thought he had a hand or a foot “swiped at” by a bear during the night as it hung outside of his tent.

Forcing the existence of large predators into human-settled landscapes is criminal and in certain circumstances, death and destruction of private property by these predators should be the responsibility of those promoting the growth of tens of thousands of these animals where history indicates never existed in the first place.

One more issue to discuss. This same person was quoted as saying, “Killing more bears will not prevent other bear-hunter conflicts, but it may irrevocably jeopardize the health of the grizzly population around Yellowstone.”

This ignorant, heartless, and senseless statement digs at the heart of the animal protection movement. It does make sense to reason that if there are fewer bears – the result of hunting them – logically, the odds of an encounter with a bear decreases. Will it end all encounters? Of course not.

The sad part of this statement is that it clearly tells us where this person’s priorities exist. They deny a simple math problem of reducing bear numbers but even at the expense of human life, doing anything about the problem “may irrevocably jeopardize the health of the grizzly population…”

Just this morning I was reading one man’s perspective on the government’s forcing of grizzlies and wolves into areas where people live, calling it “unjust and evil.”

At the crux of protecting “endangered species” is the false “best available science” that there once roamed “tens of thousands” of grizzly bears or wolves and that they MUST be restored to those numbers regardless of the human population. That is “unjust and evil.”

The countless journals from explorers and trappers from years ago simply do not support the idealistic theory that wildlife was abundant in the tens of thousands.

Evidently, one man’s life is worth saving two bears. Unjust and evil? You bet!

 

Share

Experienced Guide Killed by Attacking Grizzly

And the “brain trust” that have never been attacked by a bear have all the answers.

An experienced guide, while leading a hunter in Wyoming to retrieve a dead elk shot earlier, was attacked by a grizzly and killed. The hunter ran for his life.

Details of what specifically happened are lacking at this point. Some information can be found here, here, and here. At the last link, you can read all the comments from the intelligencers who have all the right answers and who have probably never seen a grizzly bear let alone be attacked by one.

Share

Dead Sheep And Who Done It

“What animal kills this much prey at one time”

Man does… The shepherd could walk among those sheep and kill them all one by one… A picture such as these are only evidence of dead sheep.. And a French news outlet saying wolves.. No other solid data to confirm cause..

Above metaphor 1.

A picture of a dead sheep is not a dead sheep thus is not evidence of anything but a picture of dead sheep. It is a picture first and foremost. It has ‘aspects’ of a dead sheep, and is symbolic of the idea of “dead sheep” and yet, it is NOT a dead sheep.. Nor does it prove cause of death of the dead sheep… So anyone skeptical of the pictures is using their head and simply implying they need more data.. But data in language is also a problem because all human language is metaphor whether it is recorded or in written symbols, pictures of words and numbers…. Wolves might have done this to those sheep, and people might have done this to those sheep to give the impression that wolves did this to those sheep.. But if you want to be gullible about it go ahead… Now those folks in the Alps have been having wolf troubles for years.. So why no mounted camera’s showing sheep standing around being slaughtered by wolves, or a wolf… So if these pics are your evidence supporting your argument you’re failing miserably to prove anything… This is beyond miserably amateurish…

Metaphor 2.

“Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing.”~Thomas Henry Huxley

Metaphor 3.

“God people are uneducated” —CMB
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
Coming from her thats priceless….

So these pics are an argument? No they are nothing.. You brought the pics forth as your argument and you left out any other irrefutable data in support of your argument.. Thats on you not on those who need more evidence…

So the bottom line is SWW like the WLNs and other groups are relying upon appeals to emotions for their arguments…

Share

Bears: Looking Big and Making Noise Not Always a Working Solution

I’ve always ridiculed the advice given by people, mostly from those who have never encountered a threatening bear, that when you are encountering a bear, even an outright attack, “look big” and “make loud noises” to frighten a bear away.

Over the past weekend, I was part of a discussion that included a woman that I went to high school with. I had known for several years that she was once treed by a bear near her home while she was out for a walk. It seems that in the past 25 or 30 years, she and her husband have had several encounters with bears at and near their home.

The woman told us that the area around their home has historically been ideal habitat for bears and seeing the animals around their home is a common occurrence.

The day she was treed by a bear, it happened quickly, as one might suspect. She tried the “slowly backing away” approach which only afforded her time to reach a small tree a few feet away. The tree was small enough that she could shimmy up the tree just far enough out of the reach of the bear and also small enough that the bear could not climb it.

The bear persisted to a point where the woman was slipping and losing her grip but she hung on.

She didn’t realize at the time that the bear, once realizing it couldn’t get her from the tree, tried a different tactic – it retreated but only far enough to hide behind a tree. The woman emphasized that in many of her encounters with bears, this seems to be a common method of attack – to hide and wait in ambush.

When she got back down on the ground, she spotted the bear attempting to hide behind a big tree. She quietly snuck away and when she thought she was far enough away from the bear, she ran like hell for home.

What is most interesting is that in telling of the several other bear encounters, most of them right around the house, she was emphatic in saying that the advice to “look big” and “make a lot of noise” is quite ineffective. On multiple occasions, particularly once when a bear forced both the husband and wife into their garden shed, they did their best to “look big,” yelled and made as much noise as they could only to witness the bear basically ignoring their actions.

It is important to note that both of these people, who are not your typical “scaredy-cats” felt threatened by this and all other attacks. They find the advice always given worthless from their own experiences.

I would suppose the takeaway from all of this is that one probably should not completely abandon the advice given but to realize that it is ALWAYS under the circumstances of the moment that determine the actions and reactions of a bear. Perhaps it is for that reason, if someone is regularly hiking in bear country and/or seem to have regular bear visitors to their home, they should consider having at their disposal some other tool to deter a bear other than remembering to “look big” and “make noise.”

Share

Campers, hikers warned to keep food safe from bears

After a wild encounter at a New Hampshire campsite, state officials are warning resident and tourists about bear activity.

Signs have been placed at the Lincoln Woods trailhead warning hikers and campers to keep an extra eye out after a bear came a little too close for comfort.

White Mountain National Forest officials said they believe the black bear has been making its way into the Franconia Brook campsite, as well as Black Pond and other areas along the east branch of the Pemigewasset River.

“We’ve heard there’s been a couple of incidents where people set their pack down to go to look at something, and they come back and the bag’s gone,” said Evan Burks of the White Mountain National Forest.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Judge Blocks the Killing of Members of Pack of Washington Wolves

As is ALWAYS the case, a judge has issued a temporary restraining order to stop the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) from removing some or all of the members of a wolf pack habituated to killing livestock in eastern Washington. The Center for Biological Diversity and Cascadia Wildlands immediately sued once they heard of WDFW’s intentions.

According to reports, Washington has “a minimum of 122 wolves in 22 packs, with 14 successful breeding pairs.” This is a far cry from any endangerment to the species. In addition, the actions of the pack of wolves in depredating on livestock meet all the requirements for lethal removal.

But what is most sad is that wolves have NEVER been endangered. All that exists are a group of selfish, misled, and perverted people who want wolves in everyone’s backyard. Wolves do not belong in human-settled landscapes for the very reasons that WDFW decided it was time that something is done to stop this pack from destroying livestock. There should be no reason whatsoever that any property owner has to sacrifice his or her property for the protection of any animal.

In addition, while the intentions of WDFW and other wildlife managers are mostly good, you cannot accomplish the stoppage of livestock depredation by culling only one or some of any pack. It’s a pack activity and unless all members are taken out, depredations will continue. That’s a fact whether we like it or not. It’s a matter of where the importance lies – protecting animals or taking away a person’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Wars have been fought over one nation wishing to take away property and rights from another.

Judges are owned by environmental groups who are owned by the government. That’s why none of this makes any sense.

Share

Bears Don’t “Naturally” Break Into Homes?

The Outdoor Wire files a report about increased incidences of encounters with black bears. According to the report, a game warden in Vermont says that “…bears don’t naturally break into homes. They must first have had experience receiving food from humans. The process of habituation begins with attractants that residents leave out such as birdseed, pet food, or unsecured garbage.”

That makes sense…right? Or maybe not so much. What does it mean to say bears don’t naturally break into homes? Does that mean that it is not a “natural” instinct of survival to go around breaking into homes?

I guess I don’t get it. The report says the “process of habituation” begins when bears are attracted to those things humans do that tells a bear, “Hey, bear! That smells like food and you are hungry!”

I understand that bears are attracted to smells. Is this warden trying to tell us that if a bear smells hot apple pie sitting on the sideboard, he doesn’t know that it is food because he’s never had it before?

Why is it that animal protectionists place so many human qualities on animals and deny other qualities if it doesn’t neatly fit the narrative? Wild animal behavior is quite unpredictable. That’s why we label them as “wild” animals.

I will remind all readers that a bear has a sense of smell that is seven times greater than that of a bloodhound. Under the right conditions, a bloodhound can detect the odor of one cell. That’s right, one cell. A bear can probably smell your dirty laundry.

Whether your smelly good “food source” (for bears) is or isn’t “secured” doesn’t mean a bear can’t smell it if it’s put away. And, whether a bear has “previous training” on what is and what isn’t human food and how to get it, a hungry bear doesn’t give a rat’s behind whether a game warden thinks a bear won’t break into your home unless he’s first had the proper training. To think such is a pretty good indication that you don’t understand how the voracity caused by intense hunger pains will drive any wild animal…well, wild.

We shouldn’t assume anything. If you live in bear country you might have the unpleasant experience of encountering a hungry bear. Look out! A curious bear…maybe not so much of a problem.

Bears “naturally” live in the woods. Bears “naturally” eat when they are hungry. If hunger overpowers fear of humans, with or without the proper training, you might have a midnight visitor come knocking on your door…or it’s just come crashing in without knocking.

It should be only “natural” to be prepared…but we’re not.

Share