Not exactly what those in the sciences would call a rigorous proof.

Wolfgang
um.....well, o.k., maybe the neurosciences.

um.... well, they sure have a lot of nerve!

vince

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:58:41 -0400, vincent p. norris
wrote:

On 14 Aug 2005 06:49:02 -0700, "Steve" wrote:
..... The PA Game Commission says there is no record
of a black bear *ever* attacking a human in PA.

Three young adults were camping in a "no camping" area of Hickory Run
State Park and had an "encounter" with a bear. The injuries weren't
life-threatening, but the campers did stupid tings. The park assistant
manager calls the incident and "encounter" rather than an "atttack."

Steve

I'd call that a pretty serious "encounter." Even if the campers "did
stupid things," perhaps the Game Commission should revise its
statement.

Perhaps "there is no record of a black bear ever attacking a human in
PA, except when they sorta provoke it."

vince


I read the stories and followups when the news was fresh. I think the
bear may have been acting in self defense (or food defense, once he'd
found it), though it's hard to tell what happened, as almost
everything the kids said, except the one who was up in the car and had
no clue anything was going on, sounded like a doper's story made up to
cover the very few injuries that the girl had. Evidence was that the
bear had whacked her or bitten her once. The rest of her very minor
injuries could have been from floundering around in the brush.

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: lid (strip the .invalid to email)

vincent p. norris wrote:
"Steve" wrote:
Three young adults were camping in a "no camping" area of Hickory Run
State Park and had an "encounter" with a bear. The injuries weren't
life-threatening, but the campers did stupid tings. The park assistant
manager calls the incident and "encounter" rather than an "atttack."

I'd call that a pretty serious "encounter." Even if the campers "did
stupid things," perhaps the Game Commission should revise its
statement.

No, I don't think so. If a bear "attacks" a human it must
be destroyed. The PA Game Commission is correct.

If anybody needs to be put down it's those three drunken
dimbulbs not the bear.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 23:26:44 -0500, "Wolfgang"
wrote:


"Thomas Littleton" wrote in message
news:xguLe.355$286.190@trndny09...
...The only
potential issue, as I see it, is someone letting a kid approach a
bear.....especially a mother with cub(s).

And where would this hypothetical someone be allowing a theoretical kid to
approach a probabilistic bear.....with or without potential cubs?

Wolfgang
who knows than an academic issue ain't worth squat if you can't find a place
to test it.

Lots of stories around, mostly about tourons in Yellowstone or
Yosemite, who put their children in danger with bears and other wild
animals for the cute picture. One could write or email and ask about
the rangers, if one wanted the truth. I've been to Yellowstone and
seen the tourons, back when I was a kid and the rangers weren't yet
sick of killing 'problem' bears so weren't much enforcing bear rules
and saw things that now upset me, though none involved parents
directly putting kids in danger. Other than letting them hold jelly
donuts out the car windows for the bears to take. At the time, I
wasn't scared, just disgusted at the stupidity.

People whose big encounters with wildlife have been the bunny or the
squirrel in their suburban or urban back yard tend to act as if
they're all very dangerous or as if they're all like cartoon
characters when they finally see bigger wildlife. Disney and Yogi
Bear have a lot to answer for...

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: lid (strip the .invalid to email)

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 23:01:19 -0500, Cyli
wrote:

Following up my own post. Distinction to be made between maulings and
killings. You may get mauled on the way to being killed, so a death
would cover both, but most bloody difficulties with bears don't come
to death. The last US death by black bear I recall reading about was
that woman in Tennessee or somewhere in the southern mountains a year
or three back. Husband left her on the trail while he went fishing
and came back to find a bear and cub having a nibble of her dead body.
I don't, in this case, recall if the bear killed her or if it found
her dead or she ran from it and fell and got knocked out. Bear and
cub hunted down and killed in that case.



Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: lid (strip the .invalid to email)

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 00:01:30 -0500, "Wolfgang"
wrote:


"Cyli" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 21:51:09 -0400, "Frank Reid"
moc.deepselbac@diersicnarf wrote:

For the new camper, the
careless camper, the just plain dingbat or drunkie, the odds get much
heavier. "Hold my beer while I go pet / scare / fight the bear, will
ya'?" "He's in cooler. Get the cooler back from him." "Little
Jimmie, there's a bear there. Run away. Run away. Run fast!" "Oh,
let the dog loose. It'll chase the bear away." "Grab all the food
and hide in the tent with it." "Little Jimmie, take a donut over
there to feed the bear, we'll get a picture."

Hey, Wolfgang, we done did that whole list in under 10 minutes (I'll
substitute you for Little Jimmy and the dog). Coool. I guess I qualify
as
the new, careles, dingbat, dunkie camper.


Gee, you're harsh on yourself. I'd only have thought careless. And
that only because I didn't think you'd properly taken care for
raccoons or 'possums. Since no one had informed you there was a camp
garbage bear. Maybe dingbat on the running part. But the bear
already had food and you guys are a tad bigger than a kid, so, as was
proven, were pretty safe.

Not exactly what those in the sciences would call a rigorous proof.

Wolfgang
um.....well, o.k., maybe the neurosciences.

You're still alive, right? Only anecdotal evidence, but it worked.
Each anecdote is a datum. Enough data can make for provisional proof.
However, we only have one datum, so I'd not rely on it,
scientifically. Only in this one pragmatic case.

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: lid (strip the .invalid to email)

Cyli wrote in
:


Gee, you're harsh on yourself. I'd only have thought careless. And
that only because I didn't think you'd properly taken care for
raccoons or 'possums. Since no one had informed you there was a camp
garbage bear. Maybe dingbat on the running part. But the bear
already had food and you guys are a tad bigger than a kid, so, as was
proven, were pretty safe.


So, aside from not setting up camp in a no camping area, and the fact that
nobody got hurt, how is this different than the stoners in the woods?

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

"vincent p. norris" wrote in message
...
That was a case of a man attacking a bear, not a bear attacking a man.

Serves him right for leading with his chin.

Wolfgang

Absolutely! Even if he had been badly mauled, he asked for it!

vince

Maybe so. But it seems to me that life is replete with examples of folks
who "asked for it" without engendering contempt for them or approval of
those who delivered it.

Wolfgang
or maybe i got lost somewhere and this isn't roff.

"Cyli" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 00:01:30 -0500, "Wolfgang"
wrote:


"Cyli" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 21:51:09 -0400, "Frank Reid"
moc.deepselbac@diersicnarf wrote:

For the new camper, the
careless camper, the just plain dingbat or drunkie, the odds get much
heavier. "Hold my beer while I go pet / scare / fight the bear, will
ya'?" "He's in cooler. Get the cooler back from him." "Little
Jimmie, there's a bear there. Run away. Run away. Run fast!" "Oh,
let the dog loose. It'll chase the bear away." "Grab all the food
and hide in the tent with it." "Little Jimmie, take a donut over
there to feed the bear, we'll get a picture."

Hey, Wolfgang, we done did that whole list in under 10 minutes (I'll
substitute you for Little Jimmy and the dog). Coool. I guess I qualify
as
the new, careles, dingbat, dunkie camper.


Gee, you're harsh on yourself. I'd only have thought careless. And
that only because I didn't think you'd properly taken care for
raccoons or 'possums. Since no one had informed you there was a camp
garbage bear. Maybe dingbat on the running part. But the bear
already had food and you guys are a tad bigger than a kid, so, as was
proven, were pretty safe.

Not exactly what those in the sciences would call a rigorous proof.

Wolfgang
um.....well, o.k., maybe the neurosciences.

You're still alive, right?

Even here in ROFF I'd expect most to accept the mere fact of our testimonial
evidence (irrespective of the specific content thereof) as acceptable and
sufficient to prove that we did indeed survive.

Only anecdotal evidence, but it worked.
Each anecdote is a datum. Enough data can make for provisional proof.
However, we only have one datum, so I'd not rely on it,
scientifically. Only in this one pragmatic case.

Cyli

The English language, she is a slippery beast. A single anecdote delivered
by the protagonist is rock solid proof that he or she survived whatever
adventure is under consideration. On the other hand, the testimonial
evidence of millions of survivors does nothing to establish even provisional
proof that say, warfare for example, is safe. In short, the ex post facto
determination that an activity is safe based solely on the survival of the
participants is fatally flawed. This is precisely the sort of logic that
leads people to dip their children's hands in a pot of honey so that they
can get a photo of a bear licking it off.

Wolfgang

On 15 Aug 2005 12:28:00 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

Cyli wrote in
:


Gee, you're harsh on yourself. I'd only have thought careless. And
that only because I didn't think you'd properly taken care for
raccoons or 'possums. Since no one had informed you there was a camp
garbage bear. Maybe dingbat on the running part. But the bear
already had food and you guys are a tad bigger than a kid, so, as was
proven, were pretty safe.


So, aside from not setting up camp in a no camping area, and the fact that
nobody got hurt, how is this different than the stoners in the woods?


They neither touched nor were touched by the bear. Nobody pulled a
knife. They were able to give a coherent account of the incident
afterward. They didn't have to go to either a hospital or jail
afterward. They, unlike the kids, had had no warning of any problems
in the area (I figure illegal campsites are a warning in themselves.).
While they did run, they ran to a secure place (except in Yellowstone
and Yosemite and a few other overpopulated tourist places, cars and
trucks are pretty secure from bears). Nothing in they account
indicates that they did anything to enrage the bear.

They probably annoyed it in with the truck lights and the horn, but
garbage bears who have found garbage are pretty immune to such
irritations. Noise and light are actually recommended as ways to
chase away bears. I don't know why, because every report I've heard
where it was used had at most a 3% effect, temporary at that, once the
bear has smelled or intuited food nearby.

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: lid (strip the .invalid to email)