[Mika]

A polar bear shot after it attacked a British expedition of five in Svalbard, Norway

From Yahoo News

One of the expedition members is dead, four others are hospitalized.

What I don't get is that deducting from the news, the expedition did not have a single gun with them, even though that should be mandatory (and trained!) when going off the populated area in Svalbard. According to my understanding, everyone of them should have had one. Secondly, this seems like a huge underestimation in many areas by the expedition leaders.

Thirdly, I'm shocked by the comments in the Yahoo News. Quite many of those comments condemn the shooting of the bear (equalling it to revenge), that displays worst kind of ignorance that I can think of! But that's the internet then I guess.

[-Sara-]

One should not go anywhere without proper equipment. If they had a rifle or such, a warning shot may have chased the bear off maybe: both parties would be fine. But then again going underequiped on survival trips seems pretty commonplace. How many people weren't snowed in thinking 'but the weather looked so clear this morning'? Not to mention dehydrated folks who's car broken down in the middle of the desert, argumenting that a day earlier there was a nice breeze.

As for wildlife-sympathy, it's a newage interwebz bandwagon thing. It's so easily said when one is not involved, can type relatively private over the internet and has but to press buttons and press enter to stamp an opinion on something without having to defend or rationalize it. It would be far more sympathetic to take measures so the bear runs off and takes a detour, like a siren or loud noise. It probably won't care an awful lot at the end of the day and go it's merry way.

[Dilmah G]

Thirdly, I'm shocked by the comments in the Yahoo News. Quite many of those comments condemn the shooting of the bear (equalling it to revenge), that displays worst kind of ignorance that I can think of! But that's the internet then I guess.

I agree. I can't believe Yahoo News' audience is populated by such airy-fairy wankers who have no grasp of reality.

Ignorant tourists..................ignorant shooters. A tranquiliser would have sufficed. How I hate the inhuman race.

Because I totally carry tranqs around with me. Of course. 

[MP-Ryan]

As someone who grew up with dangerous wildlife quite literally in his backyard (black bear, grizzlies, cougars, moose, deer, etc), I'm generally unsurprised by people's ridiculous attitudes concerning dealing with wildlife.

They are wild animals.  Given the necessity, they will attack and kill you (be it for food or defense if no escape is readily available).  Polar bears are the closest thing humans have to a natural predator.  Tranq'ing doesn't work for bear defense - EVER! - and is only an option when a bear is being a nuisance but not aggressive.  That isn't typical polar bear behaviour - usually they're aggressive.  When a bear attacks a human for food, there is only one course of action - the bear must be destroyed, or they will do it again.

As for the lack of firearms for an expedition in Svalbaard, that's just Darwin Award material.  EDIT:  But it actually doesn't say explicitly that the group lacked armed security.

[Mika]

Thirdly, I'm shocked by the comments in the Yahoo News. Quite many of those comments condemn the shooting of the bear (equalling it to revenge), that displays worst kind of ignorance that I can think of! But that's the internet then I guess.

I agree. I can't believe Yahoo News' audience is populated by such airy-fairy wankers who have no grasp of reality.

Ignorant tourists..................ignorant shooters. A tranquiliser would have sufficed. How I hate the inhuman race.

Because I totally carry tranqs around with me. Of course. 

Oh please, no more! I had to stop reading after about 20 to 30 comments, I just couldn't bear it any more.

There's a reason why everyone going to Svalbard for a longer time spends first two weeks in a shooting range with a hunting rifle, and that it is mandatory to carry it. I hope this expedition did, but there's probably more to this than apparent from the news.

Were they sleeping in a tent there, or did this happen in a daylight time? "Morning" doesn't yet tell it

[Snail]

Wow, these comments are actually around YouTube quality or worse.

[JCDNWarrior]

People generally are more shocked by the death of an animal because people are being and have been dehumanized by the media. Even more because Polar Bears are apparently endangered, even though their numbers are exploding the past years. For instance: (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/5599916/Polar-Bears-are-not-dying-out-say-scientists-in-book-on-popular-scare-stories.html) .

And as MP-Ryan said, if a bear kills a human, they tend to do it again, as well.

[Mika]

As someone who grew up with dangerous wildlife quite literally in his backyard (black bear, grizzlies, cougars, moose, deer, etc), I'm generally unsurprised by people's ridiculous attitudes concerning dealing with wildlife.

I just can't get myself to be unsurprised about them; there are ridiculous comments coming from the people already living in this country, but if I go to Central Europe...

Some humorist said that it could be possible to ship some extra wild wolves from here to Central Europe, any takers?

[castor]

LOL, based on those comments one would think getting shot is the worst thing wild life has to bear due to humanity.

[NGTM-1R]

Some humorist said that it could be possible to ship some extra wild wolves from here to Central Europe, any takers?

Central Europe gets its wolves from Canada. True story.

[Unknown Target]

LOL, based on those comments one would think getting shot is the worst thing wild life has to bear due to humanity.

Doooh ho ho ho ho.

[Black Wolf]

People generally are more shocked by the death of an animal because people are being and have been dehumanized by the media. Even more because Polar Bears are apparently endangered, even though their numbers are exploding the past years. For instance: (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/5599916/Polar-Bears-are-not-dying-out-say-scientists-in-book-on-popular-scare-stories.html) .

Yeah, those guys are wrong, and they're MDs, not any kind of relevant discipline. The people who actually study polar bears all agree that their numbers are decreasing, although the rate is ambiguous because they're bloody hard to count.

[EDIT] - Should clarify - the bears may not die out, but their biological niche (hunting ringed seals on sea ice) is getting less and less practical due to the earlier breakup of sea ice. This will force them to either change to a different way of life (and, realistically, the only food sources that are of a high enough energy intensity come from humans, which is a bad move for them) or die out - I'm sure a couple will live on in zoos and game preserves, but as a wild species they will all but disappear if the sea ice goes.

Have a look at these (All 3 are free, which is good (and rare)).

http://arctic.synergiesprairies.ca/arctic/index.php/arctic/article/view/312
http://arctic.synergiesprairies.ca/arctic/index.php/arctic/article/view/935
http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/44/2/163.full

[Nuke]

One should not go anywhere without proper equipment. If they had a rifle or such, a warning shot may have chased the bear off maybe: both parties would be fine. But then again going underequiped on survival trips seems pretty commonplace. How many people weren't snowed in thinking 'but the weather looked so clear this morning'? Not to mention dehydrated folks who's car broken down in the middle of the desert, argumenting that a day earlier there was a nice breeze.

As for wildlife-sympathy, it's a newage interwebz bandwagon thing. It's so easily said when one is not involved, can type relatively private over the internet and has but to press buttons and press enter to stamp an opinion on something without having to defend or rationalize it. It would be far more sympathetic to take measures so the bear runs off and takes a detour, like a siren or loud noise. It probably won't care an awful lot at the end of the day and go it's merry way.

lol, these kinda bears dont fear anything. in grizzly territory you usually carry a .50 cal pistol or a good size rifle and those barely startle them. a polar bear now is much bigger. if we didnt have guns they would be at the top of the food chain, and sometimes they still are. you see one up close, your best bet is to start blasting away at its skull.

[MP-Ryan]

A lot more information on the details in this article on the attack:  http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/British+teen+killed+polar+bear+Arctic+Official/5212685/story.html

Still sounds like a cluster****, but somewhat less of a stupid cluster**** than originally reported.

[headdie]

In MP-Ryan's link it states that there were Norwegian guides with the party and though some of the usual protective measures were used it seems others weren't.  Guns were on the site and training had been issues.

When the Norwegians make their final report it will make uncomfortable reading but as for who it's still difficult to say.

The significant bits for me to date are.

Reports said the British campers had set up flares around their camp site to frighten the bears, but did not have a dog, a common safety precaution.

He said there appeared to have been a failure with a trip-wire system set up around the camp, which was supposed to protect against polar bears.

"What they have round the tents are trip wires with bullets in to stop the polar bears trying to get in — if they trip it bullets go up in the air and scares them away.

"This time it didn't happen apparently and one of the other chaps came out with a rifle and tried to kill the polar bear and didn't do it.

"And then the leader tried to kill the polar bear, but just before he killed him apparently, the bear mauled him and he's really, really bad.

[General Battuta]

One of my good friends is friends with a guy whose best friend was the guy who died.  Comic as the chain is, she's pretty upset, because he's really upset.

[JCDNWarrior]

Guess it is typical Murphey's Law though. Could it be that they were hesitant with weapons because of the Norwegian shooting, by the way?

On the subject of polar bear's risk of extinction, I used the link in my last post per illustration, I can definitely find many more, (hopefully) relevant sources.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/190805/20110802/polar-bear-global-warming-extinction-climate-change-research-world-wide-fund-wwf-geological-survey-s.htm

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/international-conservation-group-global

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1ea8233f-14da-4a44-b839-b71a9e5df868

Add that to being among the best natural swimmers, I don't think they're so threatened that you can't defend yourself from one. I do of course support ways to make sure polar bears can live in peace without ending up attacking humans because they entered their territory.

Back to my current thought - reading a few of the comments of OP's link, I'm rather curious what other people think of how people don't care about the fate of other humans but cry havoc for the death of a (predator)animal? We're not bombing the lot of them, thankfully, or even started by humans by attacking first.

[MP-Ryan]

On the subject of polar bear's risk of extinction, I used the link in my last post per illustration, I can definitely find many more, (hopefully) relevant sources.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/190805/20110802/polar-bear-global-warming-extinction-climate-change-research-world-wide-fund-wwf-geological-survey-s.htm

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/international-conservation-group-global

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1ea8233f-14da-4a44-b839-b71a9e5df868

OK, this is tangential but needs addressing.  Black Wolf posted three articles from reputable sources, all of which appear to be peer-reviewed, and the shared author among them [Ian Stirling] is [not only one of my former profs] but perhaps one of the most well-respected researchers on polar bears in the world, talking about specific populations.  By contrast, you have posted three newspaper articles skimming over some generalized findings on the species.

I hope everyone here can see the lesson on the importance of the credibility of a source.

If you read said newspaper columns, they also highlight the pertinent issue:  polar bears' habitat and traditional hunting niche is disappearing.

EDIT:  Oh yeah, and this:

Guess it is typical Murphey's Law though. Could it be that they were hesitant with weapons because of the Norwegian shooting, by the way?

is such a bat**** loony theory I don't know whether to laugh or cry.  One lunatic shoots a bunch of people in Oslo and this somehow connects to a group defending their lives from an angry, hungry predator not being able to shoot the bear dead before it killed one of their group (who weren't even of the same nationality)?  Are you serious?

[Mika]

A lot more information on the details in this article on the attack:  http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/British+teen+killed+polar+bear+Arctic+Official/5212685/story.html

Still sounds like a cluster****, but somewhat less of a stupid cluster**** than originally reported.

Thanks for finding out the details!

I agree, the incident still sounds like a cluster****. Safety precautions not taken into account (no guard or a dog), and two last ditch measures failed - first trip wire, and the second one due to lack of time (bear too close to be shot). According to this description of events, I'm surprised that nobody was actually outside, guarding the encampment area, it all relied on tripwires and flares for protection.

Guess there will be some sort of new safety precautions that have to be followed from this day on in Svalbard.

[JCDNWarrior]

(Please excuse me for the wall of text)

is such a bat**** loony theory I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

I'm aware, MP-Ryan, and I agree - It's just that every time a shooting happens, a trail of gun control and other stuff jumps up, and people are hesitant to wield weapons for a while.

And perhaps you're right in your assessment. It's just that the fine line of truth between fearmongering and (subsequent) hysteria is hard to find. Every newspaper, blog and site posts their opinion, or the opinion of another, yet I personally keep running into sources over the years that claim to be reputable and/or neutral yet are the opposite. Then there's leaks, admissions or dissenting voices in said organizations.

I commend Ian Stirling's comments about An Inconvenient Truth, though I think it could have been put stronger than an over interpretation, but his earlier comments in 2006 about Monnet's (the guy that got suspended a while ago, http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/07/suspended-polar-bear-researcher.html?ref=hp) interpretation makes me curious.

His earlier comment:

"Ian Stirling, a polar bear researcher at the University of Alberta in Canada, calls the 2006 paper a "very valuable observation … properly written up and published in a respected peer reviewed journal". 

Furthermore, in Black Wolf's first link, how come he does not address that ice grows back in winter, and that we've seen much more ice the past years, or do I misinterpret his words?

Lastly for now, another of his quotes from what he wrote:

"We hypothesize that, if the climate continues to warm as projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), then polar bears in all five populations discussed in this paper will be increasingly food-stressed, and their numbers are likely to decline eventually, probably significantly so"

I would agree with his hypothesis if it wasn't for the fact that the IPCC got caught lying, with 'Climate Gate', about the Amazon forests, now 'Polar Bear Gate'. I'll have to take the IPCC's findings with a salt mine or two. I would love to hear Ian Stirling's findings without the IPCC or WWF's version of the story, I wasn't able to find it in Google at this time.

(http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023598/after-climategate-pachaurigate-and-glaciergate-amazongate/)
(http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/2010/02/01/pathological-liars-more-ipcc-data-fraud-exposed-amazon-rainforest-not-affected-by-global-warming-claims/)

Then there's also the angle that some people consider, a mini- ice age. Seems a interesting element but I don't know much about it.
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/what-does-decline-sun-spots-mean-earth-and-its-climate

It's a mess of information from all sides of the debate, with so much information I waded through the past 30 minutes to make this little reply, let alone all the other stuff that passed me by while googling.

The main problem is that we're all put in the position to debate things while real problems for animal species, the ecology in general and things like mass chemical dumping or even Fukushima (http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=56721) aren't addressed. 
And when there's a public admission of a problem with an animal species, like the Polar Bear, the wrong things are addressed, politicized yet nothing actually helpful for the animals stems from it. Organizations turn out to be funded by those with vested interests in a certain answer, everyone has their opinions and speaks it as truth, and when reputable people speak a different tune they're minimized, fired or worse. In the meantime, any real threats to the Polar Bear and other species continue.