From: tilley@fsg.UUCP (Tom Tilley)
Subject: Re: Bears attacking people?
Reply-To: tilley@sunfse.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com
Organization: LMSC, Sunnyvale
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 16:38:17 GMT

In article <jppprqm@quantum.on.ca> eric@quantum.on.ca (Eric Johnson) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.195039.25383@afterlife.ncsc.mil> mssmith@afterlife.ncsc.mil (M. Scott Smith) writes:
>>I read with interest the story of the bear killing a person in Yellowstone,
>>and I think it's interesting that there are people who are strongly for
>>killing the bear(s) and strongly against it.
><etc>
>
>This has been discussed enough times that 'bear' has even made my kill file.
>But at the risk of contributing to the problem...

Well, I don't know whether you will see the follow-ups or not, but ...

>I don't favour killing wildlife. I think most of us feel this way. On the other
>hand, if we as a species try to preserve distinct areas as 'natural habitats'
>for other forms of life, there will inevitably be problems associated with 
>the boundaries between those habitats and our man-made environments, and with
>the role of people visiting those habitats.

Only to the extent that we are unwilling to see ourselves as "visitors".
These habitats operate by their own rules which don't always agree with our
safety and comfort.  That is not a reason to modify the habitats: it is simply
how things are.

> ... Those people [park personnel] are not out there rubbing their hands with 
>glee at having an excuse to shoot a bear.

Agreed.

> At what point should be the visiting public be protected
>against the odds? That is, the odds of having a negative encounter with a potentially
>dangerous animal? Do those against the killing argue so because they believe there
>is no risk? Because there is not enough risk? Or because they feel that humans as
>interlopers in this environment have no rights?

First, I would argue that if I am visiting the "natural world", then I assume
the risks associated with that environment whether I understand them or not.
It isn't a matter of creating or reducing risk.  One reduces risk by
understanding it and changing behavior, but the risk is not eliminated.

I sometimes suspect that the desire to "kill the bear" arises from a feeling
that the bear should be responsible, or "at fault" (similar to the view that
a person who does something wrong should be punished).  However, our society
regards culpability (in a criminal sense) to have the prerequisite of the
ability to distinguish right from wrong: something I do not believe bears
possess.  Given this, I cannot accept the notion of "bear culpability".  The
argument of "human rights" versus "bear rights" simply does not apply.

There is an argument which says that the fact that the bear attacked means
that future attacks by that bear are more likely: the encounter with people
in which the bear killed a person changed the bear.  One can then no longer
consider that bear to be in a wild state.  The argument is based upon the
fast speed with which bears learn about food sources.  I have never heard
of research where a bear that killed a person was tagged and followed rather
than killed.

I must also take issue with the "At what point should the visiting public
be protected against the odds [of dangerous animal encounters]" line.  The
issue of bears can avoid directly encountering this question by the argument
given in the above paragraph, but there are other animals where the above
paragraph obviously does not apply.  For example, when a shark or a crocodile
attacks a person, it is unreasonable to suggest that that animal is changed
by his encounter: the willingness to attack is not so unusual in these
animals.  If we feel we must kill animals, living away from urban areas,
which threaten people, then I fail to see how we will be able to protect
animals such as crocodiles.

>In a natural world, every animal will fight back to give itself good odds at living.
>It seems peculiar that humans should be expected to decline to protect themselves
>when they are part of that world.

1) I would argue that the fact that we are aware of our impact on the world,
and that the scale of that impact is very large, gives us a responsibility
to that world.  This responsibility is not borne by wildlife since the two
conditions do not apply.

2) I am unconvinced that the odds of people to live are threatened by the
natural world.  There are 5 billion of us on earth now.

3) Now, regarding the "odds" of an individual person to live: We live in a
modified world which we call civilization, not in a natural world.  We visit
the "natural world".  Those unwilling to assume the risks of a natural
habitat have the option of not visiting that habitat.  However, if the habitat
is modified, those of us willing to assume the risks to visit a natural
habitat no longer have that option.

I do not mean by this that I or anyone else can necessarily predict all
risk factors, or that the knowledge of risk is the same as the removal of
risk.  I do not make a contract with the outdoors enumerating all risk
factors: I understand that I am visiting a world which operates by different
rules from the world I live in.  I seek to understand those rules, and I
behave in a manner consistent with my knowledge of those rules (which
of course changes with time as I learn).

>If we were to vastly restrict human access to wildlife habitats, the problem would
>be greatly reduced. But such restriction would be followed by political backlash
>from the people who use these areas. And, like it or not, that group is us!

The problem would also be reduced if visitors to wildlife habitats regarded
theirselves as visitors (with the implicit assumption of the risks associated
with those habitats).  All of us live in "civilization" of some type.  We
visit natural habitats because we find something of value there, but that
something is clearly not our home.  Our ancestors', certainly, but not ours.

I choose to take the risk of visiting wildlife habitats.  My choice is not
because I "feel there is not enough risk": it is because there is something
in a unmodified habitat that I feel has value, and that I wish to see. (I
also feel that the value exists independent of my "seeing" of the land).
That "thing of value" has an inherent risk.

Tom.
#--------------------------------------------------#
| Tom Tilley                                       |
| Internet : tilley@sunfse.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com   |
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry