This is the kind of nonsense that I have been trying to convey to readers for some time. In an article at WUNC.org, a North Carolina wildlife biologist gives the following advice when encountering a bear.
Batts suggests that people limit food in outside areas, places like bird-feeders. But also, if you see a bear, take a minute to enjoy the majesty of the animal.
“Just watch and enjoy the bear as it passes through because that’s what it’s doing, it’s just passing through and I can guarantee you that he is way more scared of you than you are of him. I know that’s hard to believe, but it’s the truth.”(emphasis added)
In addition, the article states that the only problem with human and bear encounters with each other is the fault of humans (what else would you expect from a brainwashed environmentalist biologist?) because humans are afraid of bears. While perhaps some people are actually “afraid” of bears, the real problem, as far as humans go, is that they are not given the truth about wild animal behavior in order to make prudent decisions and formulate the necessary respect for the animals.
A state wildlife biologist telling people he will “guarantee” a bear, during an encounter, “is way more scared of you than you are of him” is utterly irresponsible. Under many conditions and circumstances a bear will not hang around when confronted by a human, however readers must understand that it is circumstances surrounding the life of a bear, that has forced it into human-settled landscapes. All wild animals are unpredictable and coupled with certain circumstances there’s always the possibility that conditions are right in which a bear becomes a weapon of destruction. It just sends a terrible message to people to tell them a bear is just passing through and is scared of you more than you are of the bear.
Obtaining accurate knowledge about bear and wild animal behavior isn’t based on fear as this biologists is suggesting. No person can make the best decision in given situations without having accurate and truthful information about the animal. This advice is very poor and I hope the biologist’s supervisors correct the situation before someone gets hurt because they are taught that bears are not potentially a very dangerous animal.
Blind Ignorance and Eating Bear Meat
National Public Radio presents and article written by David Sommerstein about eating bear meat. The article, as a whole, is interesting and probably many people would enjoy reading it. I did. I would, however, like to take issue with a comment that was written in the article that made me shake my head in exasperation over why writers sometimes write things that can spoil their entire piece by exposing lack of depth in thinking, and exposing their ignorance of a subject. This writer might know something about cooking and eating bear meat, but he should leave issues about bears living in the woods and how they survive to others.
Here’s my beef. The author writes: “”There’s more sprawl. There’s more people living in bear habitat,” says big game biologist Steve Heerkens with New York state’s department of environmental conservation. Yet fewer, if any, natural predators are still around to keep the bears in check.”
Obviously, the first part of this quote from the article, is a quote from a “big game biologist” who says, “There’s more sprawl. There’s more people living in bear habitat.” This comes right after a statement that says bear populations are growing. Therefore, isn’t a more logical and accurate description to say that there a more bears now living in human habitat? But this really isn’t my point.
The author follows this up with, “Yet fewer, if any, natural predators are still around to keep the bears in check.” Maybe the author should have taken a little bit of time to educate his readers and tell us what “natural predators” aren’t around anymore to keep bear numbers in check. I’ll wait.
On second thought, I can’t wait for ever. Isn’t it obvious that this article is telling us that man is not consider either natural or a predator? There really are no “natural predators” of bears, except man. First let me make a possible exception to this. Perhaps if New York, or any other state, imported wolves, maybe 4 or 5 cubs would be yanked out of their dens in mid winter and gobbled up by a pack of hungry wolves. Other than that, man is about the only “natural predator” of the bear.’
Consider, if you will, that New York is the third most populous state with about 20 million people. Now there is 20,000,000 NATURAL PREDATORS of the bear and yet any thoughts of man being a natural predator to “keep the bears in check” are often poo-pooed as unnatural and inhumane.
It just kind of makes me angry when the tone of a statement leads people to think that when it comes to wildlife, man somehow is always the bad guy in the room.