bear attack in Alaska
 

Warning: There's seriously gruesome photo in this article.

http://mountainsurvival.com/news_art...earattack.html

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

bear attack in Alaska
 

"rw" wrote ...
Warning: There's seriously gruesome photo in this article.

http://mountainsurvival.com/news_art...earattack.html



Sorta:

http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/bearhunt.asp

Dan

bear attacked in Alaska
 

Daniel-San wrote:
"rw" wrote ...
Warning: There's seriously gruesome photo in this article.

http://mountainsurvival.com/news_art...earattack.html

Sorta:

http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/bearhunt.asp

LOL !! I've made the Subject: more appropriate. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

bear attack in Alaska
 

"rw" wrote in message
k.net...
Warning: There's seriously gruesome photo in this article.

http://mountainsurvival.com/news_art...earattack.html

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.



Yup. I doubt hollering "hey bear" a few times would have chased him away.
BTW Dave, did you say 15 feet?


--
Ric Hamel
A misplaced Alaskan lost in ConUS

bear attack in Alaska
 

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 20:42:51 GMT, "Alaskan420"
wrote:

Yup. I doubt hollering "hey bear" a few times would have chased him away.
BTW Dave, did you say 15 feet?

You saw the pictures. Yes, 15 feet from a feeding sow and her cubs.

You will notice in all that I have said that the bears, regardless
their size, were not interested in us because they had plenty to eat
with the salmon. Plus, the salmon eating bears of Katmai are used to
seeing humans. That big honker was looking for food and there aren't
too many salmon around in late October. People make wonderful snacks
at that time of the year. Also, the picture of the half eaten man has
nothing to do with the big bear shown in the photos. Barnard would
like everyone to think that the bear pictured killed said man. Ain't
true. Two entirely different cases.

It does bring out one funny thing (besides the phony picture
connection) that bear spray and a pistol are not going to help you
avoiid death. You run into a monster like that, you can kiss your ass
goodbye unless you have a hunting rifle.

Dave
Procedure went fine. I'm a perfect asshole.

bear attack in Alaska
 

dplacourse wrote ...


Procedure went fine. I'm a perfect asshole.

Glad to hear it. Not fun, but not horrible, either -- so long as the results
are good, I suppose.

Dan

bear attack in Alaska
 

bear attack in Alaska
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 20:42:51 GMT, "Alaskan420"

Also, the picture of the half eaten man has
nothing to do with the big bear shown in the photos. Barnard would
like everyone to think that the bear pictured killed said man. Ain't
true. Two entirely different cases.

I've been told that, as far as getting eaten goes, black bears are a bigger
problem than griz. Griz attacks tend to be more territorial, black bear
attacks, while rare, tend to be predatory. I guess its possible to survive
a griz attack by the old fetal position if ALL else fails, but with a black
you'd better think of something else. I have no idea if thats true for the
Alaskan Brown bear (their version of the griz)


It does bring out one funny thing (besides the phony picture
connection) that bear spray and a pistol are not going to help you
avoiid death. You run into a monster like that, you can kiss your ass
goodbye unless you have a hunting rifle.


I'm pretty comfortable with things that go bang- what I've read is if your
hunting bear in AK, the guides up there don't like to see you with anything
lighter than a .375 h&h. The 7mm, .308, .338 cal's don't leave a big enough
hole for all the blood to leak out of fast enough. I'd sure hate to have a
****ed off one comming at me even if I had S&W .500. Have to be either a
real lucky shot, or enough noise to make him/her stop or turn.

Dave
Procedure went fine. I'm a perfect asshole.


very glad to hear it Dave.

jh

bear attack in Alaska
 

John Hightower wrote:

I'm pretty comfortable with things that go bang- what I've read is if your
hunting bear in AK, the guides up there don't like to see you with anything
lighter than a .375 h&h. The 7mm, .308, .338 cal's don't leave a big enough
hole for all the blood to leak out of fast enough. I'd sure hate to have a
****ed off one comming at me even if I had S&W .500. Have to be either a
real lucky shot, or enough noise to make him/her stop or turn.

I, for one, will not turn down an offer of free bear spray, but I'm not
deluding myself that bear spray would have stopped that monster.

I just don't want to be in the position of thinking, "****. I should
have taken that bear spray."

I regret credulously posting a link to a half-true story. That gory
picture of the ex-hiker was irresistible.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

bear attack in Alaska
 

John Hightower wrote:
wrote in message
...

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 20:42:51 GMT, "Alaskan420"


Also, the picture of the half eaten man has
nothing to do with the big bear shown in the photos. Barnard would
like everyone to think that the bear pictured killed said man. Ain't
true. Two entirely different cases.


I've been told that, as far as getting eaten goes, black bears are a bigger
problem than griz. Griz attacks tend to be more territorial, black bear
attacks, while rare, tend to be predatory. I guess its possible to survive
a griz attack by the old fetal position if ALL else fails, but with a black
you'd better think of something else. I have no idea if thats true for the
Alaskan Brown bear (their version of the griz)

That bear was huge. He must have been old. Maybe he had bad teeth, or a
broken bone, or was really, really ****ed off about not scoring with the
sows because some young stud kicked his ass. Maybe offing some arrogant
hairless bipedal ape seemed like a really good idea at the time.

Whatever. The point is that brown bears aren't cut out with a
bear-shaped cookie cutter. They come in all different colors of
personality and circumstance. The mere fact that even an immature one
can tear you to pieces in seconds should at least give you pause.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

bear attack in Alaska
 

Glad you're doing well.


--
Ric Hamel
A misplaced Alaskan lost in ConUS



wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 20:42:51 GMT, "Alaskan420"
wrote:

Yup. I doubt hollering "hey bear" a few times would have chased him away.
BTW Dave, did you say 15 feet?

You saw the pictures. Yes, 15 feet from a feeding sow and her cubs.

You will notice in all that I have said that the bears, regardless
their size, were not interested in us because they had plenty to eat
with the salmon. Plus, the salmon eating bears of Katmai are used to
seeing humans. That big honker was looking for food and there aren't
too many salmon around in late October. People make wonderful snacks
at that time of the year. Also, the picture of the half eaten man has
nothing to do with the big bear shown in the photos. Barnard would
like everyone to think that the bear pictured killed said man. Ain't
true. Two entirely different cases.

It does bring out one funny thing (besides the phony picture
connection) that bear spray and a pistol are not going to help you
avoiid death. You run into a monster like that, you can kiss your ass
goodbye unless you have a hunting rifle.

Dave
Procedure went fine. I'm a perfect asshole.

bear attack in Alaska
 

bear attack in Alaska
 

wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 20:42:51 GMT, "Alaskan420"
wrote:

Yup. I doubt hollering "hey bear" a few times would have chased him away.
BTW Dave, did you say 15 feet?

You saw the pictures. Yes, 15 feet from a feeding sow and her cubs.

You will notice in all that I have said that the bears, regardless
their size, were not interested in us because they had plenty to eat
with the salmon. Plus, the salmon eating bears of Katmai are used to
seeing humans. That big honker was looking for food and there aren't
too many salmon around in late October. People make wonderful snacks
at that time of the year. Also, the picture of the half eaten man has
nothing to do with the big bear shown in the photos. Barnard would
like everyone to think that the bear pictured killed said man. Ain't
true. Two entirely different cases.

It does bring out one funny thing (besides the phony picture
connection) that bear spray and a pistol are not going to help you
avoiid death. You run into a monster like that, you can kiss your ass
goodbye unless you have a hunting rifle.

You really don't have even a fuzzy notion of what a bear is, do you?

Criminally stupid.

Dave
Procedure went fine. I'm a perfect asshole.

Perhaps the first true words you posted here.

Wolfgang

bear attack in Alaska
 

On 23 Jun 2006 19:44:35 -0700, "Wolfgang" wrote:

Perhaps the first true words you posted here.

d;o)
But Fortenberry and I don't *smell* like an asshole. You do.

bear attack in Alaska
 

wrote:
On 23 Jun 2006 19:44:35 -0700, "Wolfgang" wrote:

Perhaps the first true words you posted here.

d;o)
But Fortenberry and I don't *smell* like an asshole. You do.

Neither of you sad fools has even a fuzzy notion of what personal
integrity is, do you?

Wolfgang

bear attack in Alaska
 

"rw" wrote in message
k.net...
Warning: There's seriously gruesome photo in this article.

http://mountainsurvival.com/news_art...earattack.html

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

There is another reason to doubt the truthfulness of picture #3. Alaskan
Browns have this funny habit of burying their kills for a few days to
ferment the meat and then circling around their territory and coming back
3-4 days later after it's cooked to taste. ( See Bear Spray recipe.) I have
run across numerous mounds over the years with moose calves and smaller
adult moose in them.

This hiker actually looks more like what would be expcted of a wolf attack,
(not to cross threads here), or immature brown, unless the photo was taken
after rescuers began to prepare him for removal.


--
Ric Hamel
A misplaced Alaskan lost in ConUS

bear attack in Alaska
 

On 23 Jun 2006 20:13:22 -0700, "Wolfgang" wrote:

Neither of you sad fools has even a fuzzy notion of what personal
integrity is, do you?

Bwwwaaaahahahahahahaha. Coming from you, that is the funniest, most
hilarious thing ever posted on roff. Two phunny.

bear attack in Alaska
 

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 03:25:07 GMT, "Alaskan420"
wrote:

This hiker actually looks more like what would be expcted of a wolf attack,
(not to cross threads here), or immature brown, unless the photo was taken
after rescuers began to prepare him for removal.

The folks I've talked to about bear in Alaska say that most of what we
see are immature (3 or 4 year olds), and that they can be far more
unpredictable than an aged adult. I don't know whether that's true or
not. We never saw any bear bigger than about 800 pounds (guesstimated
by a knowledgeable guide). Still, something that is almost four times
bigger than me is a little more than I want to hazzle with. d;o(

bear attack in Alaska
 

Alaskan420 wrote:
"rw" wrote in message
k.net...
Warning: There's seriously gruesome photo in this article.

http://mountainsurvival.com/news_art...earattack.html

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

There is another reason to doubt the truthfulness of picture #3. Alaskan
Browns have this funny habit of burying their kills for a few days to
ferment the meat and then circling around their territory and coming back
3-4 days later after it's cooked to taste. ( See Bear Spray recipe.) I have
run across numerous mounds over the years with moose calves and smaller
adult moose in them.

This hiker actually looks more like what would be expcted of a wolf attack,
(not to cross threads here), or immature brown, unless the photo was taken
after rescuers began to prepare him for removal.

Hm.......

Exactly how many wolf-chewed human carcasses have you seen?

Wolfgang

bear attack in Alaska
 

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
ups.com...

Alaskan420 wrote:
"rw" wrote in message
k.net...
Warning: There's seriously gruesome photo in this article.

http://mountainsurvival.com/news_art...earattack.html

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

There is another reason to doubt the truthfulness of picture #3.
Alaskan
Browns have this funny habit of burying their kills for a few days to
ferment the meat and then circling around their territory and coming
back
3-4 days later after it's cooked to taste. ( See Bear Spray recipe.) I
have
run across numerous mounds over the years with moose calves and smaller
adult moose in them.

This hiker actually looks more like what would be expcted of a wolf
attack,
(not to cross threads here), or immature brown, unless the photo was
taken
after rescuers began to prepare him for removal.

Hm.......

Exactly how many wolf-chewed human carcasses have you seen?

Wolfgang


Hm.......

I'm not certain why the quantity of observations is relevant unless of
course it took you several attempts at observing a rainbow and a catfish
side by side to be able to tell the difference, but seeing as you asked...

That photo would be the 3rd human. However, the source of the meal, (human
or otherwise), has very little to do with how they attack and devour. I
have seen several dozen moose and caribou that had been killed. Bears and
wolves have very distinct methods of killing and eating that leave obvious
evidence indicating the attacker.

Your sarcasm is appreciated though. Always good for a chuckle.


--
Ric Hamel
A misplaced Alaskan lost in ConUS

bear attack in Alaska
 

"Alaskan420" wrote:
"rw" wrote in message
nk.net...
Warning: There's seriously gruesome photo in this article.

http://mountainsurvival.com/news_art...earattack.html

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

There is another reason to doubt the truthfulness of picture #3.

The only truth that lacked in the picture/story was the
implication that there was a connection between the description
and pictures in the first part of the story with that particular
body.

I have no reason to doubt that picture #3 was in fact the
remains of someone eaten by a bear. It could be that something
else ate him, but there is nothing to suggest it wasn't a bear.
(The problem is that we don't know if that was even in Alaska,
much less do we really know what happened to it.)

Alaskan
Browns have this funny habit of burying their kills for a few days to
ferment the meat and then circling around their territory and coming back
3-4 days later after it's cooked to taste. ( See Bear Spray recipe.) I have
run across numerous mounds over the years with moose calves and smaller
adult moose in them.

But that is *only* after they eat as much as they can to begin
with, and when the bear wants to come back and eat more.
Commonly they do that with moose, and commonly they *don't* do
that with humans. (Note that the remains of Timothy Treadwell
and his companion were not buried either, if I remember right.)

This hiker actually looks more like what would be expcted of a wolf attack,

I've read your other posts, and thought until this one that you
seemed to have a pretty good perspective. However, that
statement is hilarious!

Nobody in North America has *ever* found a human that was eaten
by wolves, so it is pretty difficult to know what one would look
like.

(not to cross threads here), or immature brown, unless the photo was taken
after rescuers began to prepare him for removal.

It looks just like what one would expect if a bear ate it.
Could be a brown bear or a black bear too. Off hand I can't
think of anything else likely to do that.

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

bear attack in Alaska
 

"Alaskan420" wrote:
"Wolfgang" wrote:
Hm.......

Exactly how many wolf-chewed human carcasses have you seen?

Wolfgang


Hm.......

I'm not certain why the quantity of observations is relevant unless of

Wolves don't chew humans... The quantity of known observations
is zero.

That photo would be the 3rd human. However, the source of the meal, (human
or otherwise), has very little to do with how they attack and devour. I
have seen several dozen moose and caribou that had been killed. Bears and
wolves have very distinct methods of killing and eating that leave obvious
evidence indicating the attacker.

Usually tracks and scat are the only way to know. Certainly
that picture give no clue at all.

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

bear attack in Alaska
 

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Alaskan
Browns have this funny habit of burying their kills for a few days to
ferment the meat and then circling around their territory and coming back
3-4 days later after it's cooked to taste. ( See Bear Spray recipe.) I have
run across numerous mounds over the years with moose calves and smaller
adult moose in them.

But that is *only* after they eat as much as they can to begin
with, and when the bear wants to come back and eat more.
Commonly they do that with moose, and commonly they *don't* do
that with humans. (Note that the remains of Timothy Treadwell
and his companion were not buried either, if I remember right.)

In the summer of '98 there were two grizzly attacks near Pincher Creek
when I fished the Crowsnest area of Alberta, one accidental when a
hiker blundered between sow and cub, and the other predatory on a fly
fisherman: the bear killed and buried him, it was not released whether
or not it snacked first.

Nobody in North America has *ever* found a human that was eaten
by wolves, so it is pretty difficult to know what one would look
like.

There have been disturbing attacks, which the Saskachewan Government
will not verify, by junkyard dog type wolves that have lost their fear
of humans. They may have had a snack but the RCMP has not verified it
as far as I know; FS wrote an article that implied they did.

http://www.outdoorlife.com/outdoor/p...168298,00.html

I figure that once anyone figures they are an expert on wolves, bears,
etc., the odds rise that they will get their ass in trouble.

bear attack in Alaska
 

Alaskan420 wrote:
"Wolfgang" wrote in message
ups.com...

Exactly how many wolf-chewed human carcasses have you seen?

Wolfgang


Hm.......

I'm not certain why the quantity of observations is relevant unless of
course it took you several attempts at observing a rainbow and a catfish
side by side to be able to tell the difference, but seeing as you asked...

I had to look at quite a few brown trout and brook trout before I could
unfailingly distinguish between them. I never confused a rainbow with
either of them. The differences between any of them and any species of
catfish was a no brainer.

That photo would be the 3rd human. However, the source of the meal, (human
or otherwise), has very little to do with how they attack and devour. I
have seen several dozen moose and caribou that had been killed. Bears and
wolves have very distinct methods of killing and eating that leave obvious
evidence indicating the attacker.

Your sarcasm is appreciated though. Always good for a chuckle.

Sarcasm? The distinctions between wolf kills and bear kills are not
evident to me. Apparently they are to you. I don't suppose that my
curiosity alone will be enough to entice you in to a detailed analysis,
but there must be others as ignorant.....and willing to learn.....as
me. Educate us.......please.

Wolfgang

bear attack in Alaska
 

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
"Alaskan420" wrote:
"rw" wrote in message
nk.net...
Warning: There's seriously gruesome photo in this article.

http://mountainsurvival.com/news_art...earattack.html

--
Snip

Alaskan
Browns have this funny habit of burying their kills for a few days to
ferment the meat and then circling around their territory and coming back
3-4 days later after it's cooked to taste. ( See Bear Spray recipe.) I
have
run across numerous mounds over the years with moose calves and smaller
adult moose in them.

But that is *only* after they eat as much as they can to begin
with, and when the bear wants to come back and eat more.
Commonly they do that with moose, and commonly they *don't* do
that with humans. (Note that the remains of Timothy Treadwell
and his companion were not buried either, if I remember right.)

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


Floyd,

Living in Barrow I will assume you have more than average exposure to Polar
Bears. As you are aware they have been getting exceptionally aggressive over
the last 10-20 years. Even to the point of breaking into buildings. And they
do eat most, if not all, of their kill immediately. But we're not talking
Polar Bears.

I am sure you are also aware that humans have been buried alive after having
been mauled. (not eaten until the bear was full), in the back country of
Denali. There is more than one documented case where an EPIRB "saved" a bear
victims life.

I am willing to bet that we could both do a little research and come up with
citations to back up each observation. BTW, Treadwell and his companion were
buried.
http://outside.away.com/outside/news...rothers_1.html

I based my statement on the fact the the wounds to that hiker's leg appeared
very clean, with no debris in the wound, and the color of the remaining
flesh at the leg was still rather bright instead of "cooked". No sign of
having been buried. My experience comes from decades of hiking in the
Chugach Mountains around Anchorage and fishing/hiking the trail systems
around Seward and Kenai. I believe these are the highest bear encounter
areas of the state. However, as I stated in my post, it could have been a
wolf or a young bear attack. From just the photo there is insufficient
evidence to claim strongly in either direction.

As for your assertion that there are no documented cases that could be
attributed to wolves. Read what the State of Alaska has to say.
http://wildlife.alaska.gov/pubs/tech...chb13_full.pdf
(adobe.pdf)

The idea that a healthy wolf will not attack humans is just plain false.
Maybe this comes from tree huggers? I don't know. Who knows how wilderness
lore gets started? It does appear that a percentage of the documented
attacks involve wolves who were discovered to have rabies.



--
Ric Hamel
A misplaced Alaskan lost in ConUS

bear attack in Alaska
 

"Rock Wolf" wrote in message
oups.com...

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Alaskan
Browns have this funny habit of burying their kills for a few days to
ferment the meat and then circling around their territory and coming
back
3-4 days later after it's cooked to taste. ( See Bear Spray recipe.) I
have
run across numerous mounds over the years with moose calves and smaller
adult moose in them.

But that is *only* after they eat as much as they can to begin
with, and when the bear wants to come back and eat more.
Commonly they do that with moose, and commonly they *don't* do
that with humans. (Note that the remains of Timothy Treadwell
and his companion were not buried either, if I remember right.)

In the summer of '98 there were two grizzly attacks near Pincher Creek
when I fished the Crowsnest area of Alberta, one accidental when a
hiker blundered between sow and cub, and the other predatory on a fly
fisherman: the bear killed and buried him, it was not released whether
or not it snacked first.

Nobody in North America has *ever* found a human that was eaten
by wolves, so it is pretty difficult to know what one would look
like.

There have been disturbing attacks, which the Saskachewan Government
will not verify, by junkyard dog type wolves that have lost their fear
of humans. They may have had a snack but the RCMP has not verified it
as far as I know; FS wrote an article that implied they did.

http://www.outdoorlife.com/outdoor/p...168298,00.html

I figure that once anyone figures they are an expert on wolves, bears,
etc., the odds rise that they will get their ass in trouble.


I am no expert by any means. But I have learned enough over the years to
support my original premise. Take all the precautions you can. And always
carry a large caliber weapon.
--
Ric Hamel
A misplaced Alaskan lost in ConUS

bear attack in Alaska
 

"Rock Wolf" wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Alaskan
Browns have this funny habit of burying their kills for a few days to
ferment the meat and then circling around their territory and coming back
3-4 days later after it's cooked to taste. ( See Bear Spray recipe.) I have
run across numerous mounds over the years with moose calves and smaller
adult moose in them.

But that is *only* after they eat as much as they can to begin
with, and when the bear wants to come back and eat more.
Commonly they do that with moose, and commonly they *don't* do
that with humans. (Note that the remains of Timothy Treadwell
and his companion were not buried either, if I remember right.)

In the summer of '98 there were two grizzly attacks near Pincher Creek
when I fished the Crowsnest area of Alberta, one accidental when a
hiker blundered between sow and cub, and the other predatory on a fly
fisherman: the bear killed and buried him, it was not released whether
or not it snacked first.

Sure it happens, but that is meaningless. The point was that if
it doesn't happen it is not odd, rare, uncommon or anything to
get excited about.

Lack of burying certainly is *not* an indication that a bear was
not involved.

Nobody in North America has *ever* found a human that was eaten
by wolves, so it is pretty difficult to know what one would look
like.

There have been disturbing attacks, which the Saskachewan Government

There have been many recorded wolf attacks on humans. They all
seem to share some common characteristics, which primarily
amount to a socialized wolf that is no longer afraid of humans
and that associates humans with food.

will not verify, by junkyard dog type wolves that have lost their fear
of humans. They may have had a snack but the RCMP has not verified it
as far as I know; FS wrote an article that implied they did.

http://www.outdoorlife.com/outdoor/p...168298,00.html

That article rather clearly states that the wolves fed on the victem
for nearly an hour. But that still misses the point! Here is, quoted
from that article, *the point*:

The death of Carnegie is the first documented wolf-caused
fatality of a human in North America in at least 100 years,
and maybe the first ever on this continent, period. While
researchers have documented more than 80 incidents of wolves
attacking or injuring people over the last century, none of
those instances resulted in death.

Only one recorded death, ever. With only a single incident, it is
not appropriate to claim that *any* other incident appears "more" as
if it were wolves than a bear.

I figure that once anyone figures they are an expert on wolves, bears,
etc., the odds rise that they will get their ass in trouble.

Lots of people do qualify as genuine experts.

The problem is anyone who thinks that means they know what a
wild animal is actually going to do... The thing an expert
knows is the range of most likely actions, *and* the fact that a
wild animal might do something outside that range.

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

bear attack in Alaska
 

"Wolfgang" wrote:
Alaskan420 wrote:
Sarcasm? The distinctions between wolf kills and bear kills are not
evident to me. Apparently they are to you. I don't suppose that my
curiosity alone will be enough to entice you in to a detailed analysis,
but there must be others as ignorant.....and willing to learn.....as
me. Educate us.......please.

It should be really easy to distinguish between a bear kill and
a wolf kill, don't you think?

There would be bear scat all over the place, and it is either
berries, salmon, or human remains.

Or there would be wolf scat all over the place, and that of
course would be filled with hairs and bones from mice. (See
Mowhat, in the fiction section of your local library.)

[Sarcasm?]

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

bear attack in Alaska
 

"Alaskan420" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
"Alaskan420" wrote:
"rw" wrote in message
nk.net...
Warning: There's seriously gruesome photo in this article.

http://mountainsurvival.com/news_art...earattack.html

--
Snip

Alaskan
Browns have this funny habit of burying their kills for a few days to
ferment the meat and then circling around their territory and coming back
3-4 days later after it's cooked to taste. ( See Bear Spray recipe.) I have
run across numerous mounds over the years with moose calves and smaller
adult moose in them.

But that is *only* after they eat as much as they can to begin
with, and when the bear wants to come back and eat more.
Commonly they do that with moose, and commonly they *don't* do
that with humans. (Note that the remains of Timothy Treadwell
and his companion were not buried either, if I remember right.)

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

Floyd,

Living in Barrow I will assume you have more than average exposure to Polar
Bears.

Well, yeah, I suppose so. For example, there was one out on the
ice right in front of town yesterday. As usual I heard about
this at roughly 11:38 PM, not at 11 AM when it was there... ;-)

(Actually what I heard is that there have been three of them
hanging around right out in front of town. But I never get to
see them, and usually do in fact hear about it only many hours
later.)

As you are aware they have been getting exceptionally aggressive over
the last 10-20 years. Even to the point of breaking into buildings. And they
do eat most, if not all, of their kill immediately. But we're not talking
Polar Bears.

Well, I've seen a lot of really exciting newspaper articles
written for Lower-48 audiences, if that's what you mean. Polar
bears are not very aggressive normally, but certainly are when
they don't get enough to eat.

They do in fact climb into houses, and have been for decades.
They seem to like the smell of cooking meat... ;-)

But they rarely ever attack humans, and it is even more rare
that they eat one. Only a *very* hungry bear (perhaps starving
due to injury or whatever making it impossible to catch food)
would try eating a human.

Generally they eat only the blubber from seals, and walk off
leaving the meat for Arctic foxes, ravens and seagulls. Humans
have no blubber, so bears walk away from them very quickly.

I am sure you are also aware that humans have been buried alive after having
been mauled. (not eaten until the bear was full), in the back country of
Denali. There is more than one documented case where an EPIRB "saved" a bear
victims life.

Yeah. Brown bears aren't really very good at killing things.
And they don't seem to actually be able to sense when something
is dead, so much as just sensing when it isn't moving. (Polar
bears are good at killing, basically because their normal prey,
if it can get out of the bears grasp, actually can escape by
swimming away. Anything in the grasp of a brown bear generally
is injured to the point of effectively being unable to escape,
and the bear simply eats it alive without concern for whether it
is dead.)

I am willing to bet that we could both do a little research and come up with
citations to back up each observation. BTW, Treadwell and his companion were
buried.

http://outside.away.com/outside/news...rothers_1.html

Okay. I didn't remember that.

It doesn't change anything though, because brown bears do not
*always* bury things. They might, they might not, and if
something is buried it is indeed a good indication that a bear
did it, but if it isn't that is not a positive indication that a
beard didn't do it.

I based my statement on the fact the the wounds to that hiker's leg appeared
very clean, with no debris in the wound, and the color of the remaining
flesh at the leg was still rather bright instead of "cooked". No sign of
having been buried.

None of that has any great significance though. Not being
buried is *not* an indication that it wasn't a bear.

My experience comes from decades of hiking in the
Chugach Mountains around Anchorage and fishing/hiking the trail systems
around Seward and Kenai. I believe these are the highest bear encounter
areas of the state.

Least others doubt it, let me assure everyone that you are
accurately describing the situation! Lots of bears, and half
the human population of Alaska, all crammed into a relatively
small area. There are several brownies that wander around
inside the City of Anchorage all summer long.

However, as I stated in my post, it could have been a
wolf or a young bear attack. From just the photo there is insufficient
evidence to claim strongly in either direction.

The photo is certainly not sufficient evidence. But then again
note the latex glove on the individual next to the body. We can
assume that this person also had the training to make
observations, and it seems to me there would have been little
doubt about whether it was a black bear or a brown bear. The
chances it was a wolf are virtually *zero*.

But of course the source of the photograph is clearly unreliable,
so nothing in the text provided should be believed. For all we know
it was a body eaten by a pack of dogs, an alligator, or a lion that
got loose from the zoo!

As for your assertion that there are no documented cases that could be
attributed to wolves. Read what the State of Alaska has to say.
http://wildlife.alaska.gov/pubs/tech...chb13_full.pdf
(adobe.pdf)

Do read it. Tell me how many wolves have killed and eaten humans.

The idea that a healthy wolf will not attack humans is just plain false.

No, it is basically true. It is not *guaranteed* true though!
In general, if you don't have an habituated wolf or a sick wolf,
there is little to fear. (Which basically does mean that any
wolf you can get close to is *extremely* dangerous!)

But of course if you like to be really nervous, try what Mech
did, and video tape yourself crawling into a wolf den to examine
the pups while the entire pack paces around 20 feet away...

Maybe this comes from tree huggers? I don't know. Who knows how wilderness
lore gets started? It does appear that a percentage of the documented
attacks involve wolves who were discovered to have rabies.

Rabies, or they have been socialized. In fact attacks by
captive wolves are fairly common, and virtually all happen the
same way too. One person that the wolves are comfortable with
is accompanied by someone the wolves may or may not be used to,
and the second person raises a hand or arm above their head. To
a wolf that is a challenge for dominance, and it will jump up
and grab the arm... (Just one way that wolves differ from dogs,
as most dog breeds instinctively cower from a raised hand.)

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

bear attack in Alaska
 

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
"Alaskan420" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
"Alaskan420" wrote:
"rw" wrote in message
SNIP
The idea that a healthy wolf will not attack humans is just plain false.

No, it is basically true. It is not *guaranteed* true though!
In general, if you don't have an habituated wolf or a sick wolf,
there is little to fear. (Which basically does mean that any
wolf you can get close to is *extremely* dangerous!)

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

Floyd,

How does habituated / socialized equal unhealthy?
In the State report I linked to there are numerous attacks by healthy,
(i.e., capable of hunting), wolves.


--
Ric Hamel
A misplaced Alaskan lost in ConUS

bear attack in Alaska
 

On 25 Jun 2006 05:54:23 -0700, "Rock Wolf"
wrote:

I figure that once anyone figures they are an expert on wolves, bears,
etc., the odds rise that they will get their ass in trouble.

Mr. Treadwell and his girlfriend as an example.

bear attack in Alaska
 

"Alaskan420" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
"Alaskan420" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
"Alaskan420" wrote:
"rw" wrote in message
SNIP
The idea that a healthy wolf will not attack humans is just plain false.

No, it is basically true. It is not *guaranteed* true though!
In general, if you don't have an habituated wolf or a sick wolf,
there is little to fear. (Which basically does mean that any
wolf you can get close to is *extremely* dangerous!)

Floyd,

How does habituated / socialized equal unhealthy?
In the State report I linked to there are numerous attacks by healthy,
(i.e., capable of hunting), wolves.

I'm saying that rabid wolves attack people, *and* so do wolves
that are socialized. Two distinct causes with the same effect.

Note my point about getting close to a wolf. If you can, it is
generally either sick and doesn't care, or is socialized and not
affraid of you. Both indicate a very dangerous situation.

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

bear attack in Alaska
 

On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 07:39:32 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

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

Floyd, I think you and I sat together on a flight to Anchorage about 3
years ago. We talked about Alaskan natives and their problems with
alcohol and unemployment. I believe the flight started in Salt Lake,
but I'm not sure. We were in first class.

Dave

bear attack in Alaska
 

bear attack in Alaska
 

bear attack in Alaska
 

On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 08:49:31 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

wrote:
On 25 Jun 2006 05:54:23 -0700, "Rock Wolf"
wrote:

I figure that once anyone figures they are an expert on wolves, bears,
etc., the odds rise that they will get their ass in trouble.

Mr. Treadwell and his girlfriend as an example.

Treadwell demonstrates insanity, not expertize.


But he was sure that he was an expert. He convinced many people that
he was an expert. So he comes under the '...figures they are an
expert...' statement above. No one was able to convince him that he
was a crazy dilettante, even though that was the truth.
--

r.bc: vixen
Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc..
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless. Really.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

bear attack in Alaska
 

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

It should be really easy to distinguish between a bear kill and
a wolf kill, don't you think?

It might be under certain cirucmstances (like, for instance, if wolves
killed people, that would be a good start) but, no, generally speaking,
I can't see any reason to think so.

There would be bear scat all over the place, and it is either
berries, salmon, or human remains.

Or there would be wolf scat all over the place, and that of
course would be filled with hairs and bones from mice. (See
Mowhat, in the fiction section of your local library.)

I'm going to guess that there is enough overlap in the diets of bears
and wolves that there is a great deal of room for error. Besides, is
there any good reason to suppose that either would necessarily shy from
partaking og the other's leftovers?

It's been a long time now, but up until the eraly 90s or so, I'd read
pretty much evereything that Mowat had published for the the general
reader. I'm afraid that's just not good enough for a definitive answer
to this conundrum.

[Sarcasm?]

Well, it DOES happen here from time to time.

Wolfgang

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