Ah, the ugly truth is out: a furtively stuck a salmon fillet into George's vest that very morning....
Friendly Bear
- Thread starter Arthur Morris
- Start date
Help Support BirdPhotographers.net:
- Status
Rocky Sharwell
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2008
- Messages
- 397
I agree with you and Artie--He struck me as being mentally ill in a big way!
D
DanWalters
Guest
That is pretty close! The bear does seem to be smiling!
Paul Lagasi
BPN Member
Artie...my heart would have been racing...as much in nervousness, as with the rush of being so close to one of these majestic animals....kudos to your guide for this...
David Smith
Well-known member
I think that was TOO CLOSE.. If that bear was indeed a female with a cub, anything could have triggered an attack, even the noise of the shutter tripping, IF the bear considered it a threat to her cub. I am sure that if a Ranger had been there and seen that, the photography trip would have been over.. I can appreciate the fact that these bears are used to humans and tolerant of them, and maybe even inquisitive, but this was an extremely volatile situation, that could have resulted in injury or death to both of the parties involved.. When that bear started moving toward your group, the guide should have immeadiately started some type of response to neutralize the danger, either by having the group back slowly away or distracting the bear to another direction..
With the lens that is pictured in the image, there was no reason for that bear to get within 50-100 feet of the group.
JMHO
Dave
With the lens that is pictured in the image, there was no reason for that bear to get within 50-100 feet of the group.
JMHO
Dave
Á
Ákos Lumnitzer
Guest
I wonder what would happen if the 20-year attack free period suddenly ended? These are wild animals and people still tend to forget that. Who would get sued in that case? 
Ah, I was wondering when you two would come to the party. I had been expecting your arrival. You should really subscribe to our Bulletins as I addressed these concerns today in a BAA Notes.
Here is the piece:
TOO CLOSE TO THE BEAR? AN e-MAIL CONVERSATION
After sending yesterday’s Bulletin (which included the image and caption above), I received an e-mail from subscriber who wishes to remain anonymous. I am publishing pretty much the entire e-mail exchange here below. It is on the long side but will make for some interesting reading. (In the interest of readability I have corrected numerous spelling and grammatical errors.)
JR: The behavior shown in subject photo above (and your defense of same) is irresponsible and inexcusable regardless of statistics, the guides' experience, or anything else. Bears are wild animals. Bears and other wild animals are predicable and can't read statistics. A wild animal perfectly content to be near someone 100 times or 1000 times may attack the very next time. We have no way of knowing why. Had something happened, it would automatically have been the bear that was blamed and likely destroyed. Wouldn't you agree that there is no photograph worth running the risk of endangering the subject or the photographer no matter how small that risk? This did both. I doubt you will agree and I do not wish to engage in debate. I just thought it important for you to know that there was at least one divergent viewpoint to all those given on the blog and I ask you with all sincerity to simply think about it. Had there been a ranger present, do you think he/she would've condoned this? Sincerely, JR
AM: Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Are you suggesting that George should have run away, or than nobody should be out in the wild photographing bears in the first place? Later and love, artie
ps: Photographers and float-planing day trippers have been visiting Katmai for more than 2 decades and enjoying close encounters without incident. Timothy Treadwell and his girlfriend were killed and eaten there but if you know the story at all he was begging for it. As far as what would have happened had a ranger been present, I have no idea. They did, however, know about and tolerate Treadwell’s insane behaviors for years until he was killed….
AM: YAW.
JR: I am assuming based on the background in the scene and the rig George is using that the bear was visible from a distance.
AM: Correct.
JR: In that instance, it is easy to move at the same pace to remain a respectable distance and not interfere with the animal's buffer zone or "safe" zone. Of course, I do not know what is behind you as you are taking the photo.
AM: There are often bears behind the group.
JR: If the bear came out from cover suddenly and was on him before he had time to retreat, then of course I'm not suggesting he run away. You and I both know that would be the absolute worst thing to do. I am also not suggesting that none of us should be there.
AM: I would disagree. If you are anywhere near the bears, a hundred yards say, and you are not with an experienced guide who knows the individual bears, or if you wander into the wrong area out of ignorance, the wrong bear can run you down in less than ten seconds. By allowing folks into Katmai there is always a risk of getting attacked and eaten. Period.
JR: We all can enjoy the privilege of being out there taking photos and do so without endangering ourselves or the subject. Again, with his rig, there is no need to encroach so why allow it?
AM: You would really have to experience what is going on to understand what is going on. Chuck has been doing this for 20 years. He knows the individual bears. He knows the bad-tempered bears. Though I have not met one of them, he has told me that when a bad bear comes along he has the groups move away or leave. That was not the case here. And the bear approached George, not visa versa.
JR: What possible positive reason is there for not simply moving away?? Not run away and not wait and then run away but simply not allow the situation to come to be in the first place? What possible reason?
AM: The bears routinely approach us to within 5 to 20 yards. Routinely. Once they are that close and they decide to come even closer, leaving the area is not a good plan. You might be in one spot and have a bear go after a salmon and seem to be charging right at you when it is in fact headed for a salmon. Again, this happens in split seconds. And again, leaving the area at any speed is not a good plan.
JR: As to your "ps", I repeat, the fact that it hasn't happened is no defense against the possibility that it might and then it would be the bear that pays the ultimate price.
AM: Again, anyone in bear territory or anyone photographing bears in Katmai is of course potentially at risk no matter the distance that they keep from this or that individual bear. So you cannot have your cake and eat it. Either keep everyone out of the park, everyone, fisherman, campers, photographers, everyone, or else let the bears interact occasionally with the humans at close range in the company of a skilled, knowledgeable, and experienced guide.
JR: Bears are more important than photographs and I say that as a nature photographer who loves both nature and photography. I know the Treadwell story and do not condone or defend either what he did or that he was allowed to do it. His behavior was inexcusable.
AM: Agree.
JR: I would say that even if I agree with all of your points, which clearly I don not.
AM: Just as I do not agree at all with your points, being based on a single photograph and your never having been there.
JR: I think we (sic; you) should not publicize such actions to the general populace who may be neither as informed or considerate of the wildlife as the person portrayed.
AM: Sorry, but that is ridiculous. First, you are again forgetting that the bear approached George. Peacefully. Out of curiosity. George did not approach the bear. Second and most important, you cannot get up to see the bears without a competent guide. If you could, lots of folks would have already have been eaten. There are morons who get their arms ripped off by lions or bears at zoos, and some who have been killed at zoos. And I am talking about the general public, not the zookeepers.
JR: My overarching driving force is that more and more the natural world available wildlife is doing nothing but shrinking and when it comes to man vs animal, the animals rights always come second.
AM: If the rangers were shooting a bear or two each season because of the actions of photographers I would wholeheartedly agree with you, but zero bears shot because of the actions of photographers over the past 20 or 30 years is a pretty good record.
JR: It's high time we begin to make more allowances for these creatures to not just exist but truly live.
AM: Then write your congressman and demand that Katmai National Park is permanently closed to all human visitation.
JR: I think that is one of our gifts of nature photography in that we hopefully inspire others to admire, preserve and protect our dwindling natural world and the creatures in it. Failure to do so will result in nothing to photograph at all absent farms and zoos.
AM: That is a nice speech but it has nothing to do with the reality of Katmai. And you can get eaten at a game farm as well as at the zoo.
JR: Enough, I'm getting too preachy
AM: Agreed.
JR: … and will lose my point more than make it.
AM: Again, with your never having been there, your points and arguments are not scoring at all with me. In fact, they make no sense at all. I can see why you did not want to get into a debate.
JR: Again, I do thank you for your courtesy and willingness to listen.
AM: You are welcome. I will be running our conversations in a Notes soon. Would you like me to mention you by name and/or include your e-mail address? Later and love, artie
JR: Look, I don't want this debate to go on forever.
AM: Interesting. Yet you keep on writing back…
JR: I knew going in that there was no way on earth I would get you to see my position but I wrote anyway because I felt it was important that you know not everybody is in your boat.
AM: I am fine with that but as I said, your arguments are weak and your points are pretty much indefensible.
JR: I understand fully that I am making assumptions not having been there.
AM: Agreed and already pointed out by me.
JR: I am not trying to portray myself as any kind of animal expert. I am not trying to denigrate the experience or character of anybody involved.
AM: Well, you have already stated that #1: I should not have allowed the situation to develop as it did. And #2: that it was wrong of me to publish that image. So I guess it depends on your definition of “denigrate.”
JR: I also realize that grizzly bears are not the awful beasts they are sometimes portrayed as being by people who don't know any better.
AM: That is obviously correct.
JR: They are in fact rather well behaved and left to their own devices and treated properly prove to be no threat. I understand the wonderful record of Katmai and am thrilled by that.
AM: As the folks who visit are thrilled by being in their close proximity.
JR: My point and my only point which does not seem to be getting through is this: with experienced guides and the fantastic equipment now available it should be possible to get all the wonderful photographs anybody could want without getting in close proximity to the bear or any animal and thereby provide the opportunity for an unfortunate accident. That's it and you still have not explained why anybody needs to be this close.
AM: Well, I have explained that in detail so I will not repeat myself here.
JR: As for publishing this…
AM: I will be publishing it so that folks can see your points. I asked whether you wanted me to include your name. A yes or no answer would be fine.
JR: …providing my e-mail address would be like me forwarding the whole thing to Defenders of Wildlife or the National Resources Defense Council and inviting their membership to chime in. Neither one of us needs our mailboxes full in that manner.
AM: Well, excuse me. When I say something or publish an image in a Bulletin, I am open to comments from 10,500+ folks (including you). It is interesting that you feel free to write me to express your opinion but then decline to have your e-mail address published along with the conversation. Quite interesting. Hey, while I am sure that many folks would be agreeing with me there would likely be some who would be agreeing with you. I did miss your original point. You are obviously free to send the image and the Bulletin to whomever you would like. Be sure however, to include your e-mail address. In your first e-mail you stated “I do not wish to engage in debate,” yet when I wrote you back you chose to reply and debate and you did that twice. But when I ask you questions you choose to ignore them. Later and love, artie
ps: I would appreciate hearing from you before 11 am today as to whether you would like me to use your name or not in the Bulletin. I will be stating that you asked not to have your e-mail address published (unless you reconsider and instruct me to do otherwise.) pps: I have probably spent close to an hour answering your e-mails…..
AM: Third try getting you to answer a simple question; I asked whether you wanted me to include your name. Yes or no would be fine. Do you want me to use your name or do you prefer to be anonymous?
JR: Sorry - no, let it rest - no name, no e-mail, no nothing.
AM: OK. I love folks with big mouths who have zero guts. Later and love, artie
Here is the piece:
TOO CLOSE TO THE BEAR? AN e-MAIL CONVERSATION
After sending yesterday’s Bulletin (which included the image and caption above), I received an e-mail from subscriber who wishes to remain anonymous. I am publishing pretty much the entire e-mail exchange here below. It is on the long side but will make for some interesting reading. (In the interest of readability I have corrected numerous spelling and grammatical errors.)
JR: The behavior shown in subject photo above (and your defense of same) is irresponsible and inexcusable regardless of statistics, the guides' experience, or anything else. Bears are wild animals. Bears and other wild animals are predicable and can't read statistics. A wild animal perfectly content to be near someone 100 times or 1000 times may attack the very next time. We have no way of knowing why. Had something happened, it would automatically have been the bear that was blamed and likely destroyed. Wouldn't you agree that there is no photograph worth running the risk of endangering the subject or the photographer no matter how small that risk? This did both. I doubt you will agree and I do not wish to engage in debate. I just thought it important for you to know that there was at least one divergent viewpoint to all those given on the blog and I ask you with all sincerity to simply think about it. Had there been a ranger present, do you think he/she would've condoned this? Sincerely, JR
AM: Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Are you suggesting that George should have run away, or than nobody should be out in the wild photographing bears in the first place? Later and love, artie
ps: Photographers and float-planing day trippers have been visiting Katmai for more than 2 decades and enjoying close encounters without incident. Timothy Treadwell and his girlfriend were killed and eaten there but if you know the story at all he was begging for it. As far as what would have happened had a ranger been present, I have no idea. They did, however, know about and tolerate Treadwell’s insane behaviors for years until he was killed….
…..
JR: Thanks so much for the considerate and courteous response. AM: YAW.
JR: I am assuming based on the background in the scene and the rig George is using that the bear was visible from a distance.
AM: Correct.
JR: In that instance, it is easy to move at the same pace to remain a respectable distance and not interfere with the animal's buffer zone or "safe" zone. Of course, I do not know what is behind you as you are taking the photo.
AM: There are often bears behind the group.
JR: If the bear came out from cover suddenly and was on him before he had time to retreat, then of course I'm not suggesting he run away. You and I both know that would be the absolute worst thing to do. I am also not suggesting that none of us should be there.
AM: I would disagree. If you are anywhere near the bears, a hundred yards say, and you are not with an experienced guide who knows the individual bears, or if you wander into the wrong area out of ignorance, the wrong bear can run you down in less than ten seconds. By allowing folks into Katmai there is always a risk of getting attacked and eaten. Period.
JR: We all can enjoy the privilege of being out there taking photos and do so without endangering ourselves or the subject. Again, with his rig, there is no need to encroach so why allow it?
AM: You would really have to experience what is going on to understand what is going on. Chuck has been doing this for 20 years. He knows the individual bears. He knows the bad-tempered bears. Though I have not met one of them, he has told me that when a bad bear comes along he has the groups move away or leave. That was not the case here. And the bear approached George, not visa versa.
JR: What possible positive reason is there for not simply moving away?? Not run away and not wait and then run away but simply not allow the situation to come to be in the first place? What possible reason?
AM: The bears routinely approach us to within 5 to 20 yards. Routinely. Once they are that close and they decide to come even closer, leaving the area is not a good plan. You might be in one spot and have a bear go after a salmon and seem to be charging right at you when it is in fact headed for a salmon. Again, this happens in split seconds. And again, leaving the area at any speed is not a good plan.
JR: As to your "ps", I repeat, the fact that it hasn't happened is no defense against the possibility that it might and then it would be the bear that pays the ultimate price.
AM: Again, anyone in bear territory or anyone photographing bears in Katmai is of course potentially at risk no matter the distance that they keep from this or that individual bear. So you cannot have your cake and eat it. Either keep everyone out of the park, everyone, fisherman, campers, photographers, everyone, or else let the bears interact occasionally with the humans at close range in the company of a skilled, knowledgeable, and experienced guide.
JR: Bears are more important than photographs and I say that as a nature photographer who loves both nature and photography. I know the Treadwell story and do not condone or defend either what he did or that he was allowed to do it. His behavior was inexcusable.
AM: Agree.
JR: I would say that even if I agree with all of your points, which clearly I don not.
AM: Just as I do not agree at all with your points, being based on a single photograph and your never having been there.
JR: I think we (sic; you) should not publicize such actions to the general populace who may be neither as informed or considerate of the wildlife as the person portrayed.
AM: Sorry, but that is ridiculous. First, you are again forgetting that the bear approached George. Peacefully. Out of curiosity. George did not approach the bear. Second and most important, you cannot get up to see the bears without a competent guide. If you could, lots of folks would have already have been eaten. There are morons who get their arms ripped off by lions or bears at zoos, and some who have been killed at zoos. And I am talking about the general public, not the zookeepers.
JR: My overarching driving force is that more and more the natural world available wildlife is doing nothing but shrinking and when it comes to man vs animal, the animals rights always come second.
AM: If the rangers were shooting a bear or two each season because of the actions of photographers I would wholeheartedly agree with you, but zero bears shot because of the actions of photographers over the past 20 or 30 years is a pretty good record.
JR: It's high time we begin to make more allowances for these creatures to not just exist but truly live.
AM: Then write your congressman and demand that Katmai National Park is permanently closed to all human visitation.
JR: I think that is one of our gifts of nature photography in that we hopefully inspire others to admire, preserve and protect our dwindling natural world and the creatures in it. Failure to do so will result in nothing to photograph at all absent farms and zoos.
AM: That is a nice speech but it has nothing to do with the reality of Katmai. And you can get eaten at a game farm as well as at the zoo.
JR: Enough, I'm getting too preachy
AM: Agreed.
JR: … and will lose my point more than make it.
AM: Again, with your never having been there, your points and arguments are not scoring at all with me. In fact, they make no sense at all. I can see why you did not want to get into a debate.
JR: Again, I do thank you for your courtesy and willingness to listen.
AM: You are welcome. I will be running our conversations in a Notes soon. Would you like me to mention you by name and/or include your e-mail address? Later and love, artie
…..
JR: Look, I don't want this debate to go on forever.
AM: Interesting. Yet you keep on writing back…
JR: I knew going in that there was no way on earth I would get you to see my position but I wrote anyway because I felt it was important that you know not everybody is in your boat.
AM: I am fine with that but as I said, your arguments are weak and your points are pretty much indefensible.
JR: I understand fully that I am making assumptions not having been there.
AM: Agreed and already pointed out by me.
JR: I am not trying to portray myself as any kind of animal expert. I am not trying to denigrate the experience or character of anybody involved.
AM: Well, you have already stated that #1: I should not have allowed the situation to develop as it did. And #2: that it was wrong of me to publish that image. So I guess it depends on your definition of “denigrate.”
JR: I also realize that grizzly bears are not the awful beasts they are sometimes portrayed as being by people who don't know any better.
AM: That is obviously correct.
JR: They are in fact rather well behaved and left to their own devices and treated properly prove to be no threat. I understand the wonderful record of Katmai and am thrilled by that.
AM: As the folks who visit are thrilled by being in their close proximity.
JR: My point and my only point which does not seem to be getting through is this: with experienced guides and the fantastic equipment now available it should be possible to get all the wonderful photographs anybody could want without getting in close proximity to the bear or any animal and thereby provide the opportunity for an unfortunate accident. That's it and you still have not explained why anybody needs to be this close.
AM: Well, I have explained that in detail so I will not repeat myself here.
JR: As for publishing this…
AM: I will be publishing it so that folks can see your points. I asked whether you wanted me to include your name. A yes or no answer would be fine.
JR: …providing my e-mail address would be like me forwarding the whole thing to Defenders of Wildlife or the National Resources Defense Council and inviting their membership to chime in. Neither one of us needs our mailboxes full in that manner.
AM: Well, excuse me. When I say something or publish an image in a Bulletin, I am open to comments from 10,500+ folks (including you). It is interesting that you feel free to write me to express your opinion but then decline to have your e-mail address published along with the conversation. Quite interesting. Hey, while I am sure that many folks would be agreeing with me there would likely be some who would be agreeing with you. I did miss your original point. You are obviously free to send the image and the Bulletin to whomever you would like. Be sure however, to include your e-mail address. In your first e-mail you stated “I do not wish to engage in debate,” yet when I wrote you back you chose to reply and debate and you did that twice. But when I ask you questions you choose to ignore them. Later and love, artie
ps: I would appreciate hearing from you before 11 am today as to whether you would like me to use your name or not in the Bulletin. I will be stating that you asked not to have your e-mail address published (unless you reconsider and instruct me to do otherwise.) pps: I have probably spent close to an hour answering your e-mails…..
…..
AM: Third try getting you to answer a simple question; I asked whether you wanted me to include your name. Yes or no would be fine. Do you want me to use your name or do you prefer to be anonymous?
JR: Sorry - no, let it rest - no name, no e-mail, no nothing.
AM: OK. I love folks with big mouths who have zero guts. Later and love, artie
Á
Ákos Lumnitzer
Guest
Hi Artie
I guess I am ONE of the above?
Either way, if this is the community that the ownership preaches then we are all entitled to comment as long as it is done in a civilized manner right? Either way, if you were more in tune with who is subscribed to your bulletins then you would know that I already do and have been a subscriber for a couple of years. In fact, I did read all of what you had just posted above in my e-mailed bulletin. I am glad no one gets (had ever been) attacked. I look forward to all the fanfare and fireworks when someone (God forbid) finally does though!
Joerg Rockenberger
Well-known member
Just for the record - as I am signing around here with "JR": It wasn't me.
Now, I'd be first to admit that I've never been there and have no clue as for what precautions have been taken or if the actions by any photographers and other visitors in that area are responsible or not. That being said it's like the stock market - historical performance doesn't guarantee future performance. The fact that nothing has happened in the past 20 years of visits to Katmai and I presume guided bear tours is fantastic and probably speaks to the care and respect the guides and each participant shows towards the bears. And to the tolerance and patience of bears with such "intruders".
On the other hand, there is no doubt that the potential for accidents exists even under the best of circumstances as they appear to have existed in this situation. What if George would have flinched or even run away? Not every person could deal with such situation calmly. Or what if the bear was really curious about that unusual tall and land-based fish (smell) and had reached out to give it a good pat?
Saying that everyone entering Katmai assumes the risk of being attacked or eaten by a bear and is therefore on their own is a bit too easy IMO. The guides first and foremost but also the tour leaders who popularize such encounters with their dramatic images and enable others to participate carry the responsibility for everyone's safety and health. And it's obviously in your own interest as there will be a backlash if anything should ever happen (not talking about treadwelling) on such a tour.
To some extent, the reaction could be similar to what has happened after the 1996 incident at Mt. Everest when 8 people died during one day/night. Yes, all the victims were there on their own desire and responsibility. But it was the tour leaders (two of which actually died) who brought people into a zone for which those others perhaps were not ready for. There was an intense discussion about the increasing commercialization of the summit ascents and the danger ill-prepared climbers put themselves and others into. Of course, nothing really came out of it and it's back to business as usual.
Very hopefully nothing like this will ever happen at Katmai and other places where close interactions with wildlife are still possible. And I am not pretending to know how to make such encounters safer. But it's safe and it should be uncontroversial to say that more distance is better - even if the bears approach the humans. I hope that one day I have the opportunity to participate in such a bear tour but I wouldn't mind if our group would keep some more distance.
And yes, I realize that if a bear has decided to attack you the difference between 10 ft and 100 ft is really only a matter of time.
JR
Now, I'd be first to admit that I've never been there and have no clue as for what precautions have been taken or if the actions by any photographers and other visitors in that area are responsible or not. That being said it's like the stock market - historical performance doesn't guarantee future performance. The fact that nothing has happened in the past 20 years of visits to Katmai and I presume guided bear tours is fantastic and probably speaks to the care and respect the guides and each participant shows towards the bears. And to the tolerance and patience of bears with such "intruders".
On the other hand, there is no doubt that the potential for accidents exists even under the best of circumstances as they appear to have existed in this situation. What if George would have flinched or even run away? Not every person could deal with such situation calmly. Or what if the bear was really curious about that unusual tall and land-based fish (smell) and had reached out to give it a good pat?
Saying that everyone entering Katmai assumes the risk of being attacked or eaten by a bear and is therefore on their own is a bit too easy IMO. The guides first and foremost but also the tour leaders who popularize such encounters with their dramatic images and enable others to participate carry the responsibility for everyone's safety and health. And it's obviously in your own interest as there will be a backlash if anything should ever happen (not talking about treadwelling) on such a tour.
To some extent, the reaction could be similar to what has happened after the 1996 incident at Mt. Everest when 8 people died during one day/night. Yes, all the victims were there on their own desire and responsibility. But it was the tour leaders (two of which actually died) who brought people into a zone for which those others perhaps were not ready for. There was an intense discussion about the increasing commercialization of the summit ascents and the danger ill-prepared climbers put themselves and others into. Of course, nothing really came out of it and it's back to business as usual.
Very hopefully nothing like this will ever happen at Katmai and other places where close interactions with wildlife are still possible. And I am not pretending to know how to make such encounters safer. But it's safe and it should be uncontroversial to say that more distance is better - even if the bears approach the humans. I hope that one day I have the opportunity to participate in such a bear tour but I wouldn't mind if our group would keep some more distance.
And yes, I realize that if a bear has decided to attack you the difference between 10 ft and 100 ft is really only a matter of time.
JR
Oshkosh,
You are taking this way too personally.
I guess I am ONE of the above?
That would be correct.
Either way, if this is the community that the ownership preaches then we are all entitled to comment as long as it is done in a civilized manner right?
Absoultey; what would make you think otherwise????? All that I was trying to do was make the point that the two comments had already been (asked) and answered.
Either way, if you were more in tune with who is subscribed to your bulletins then you would know that I already do and have been a subscriber for a couple of years.
I figured that you were. Are you suggesting that I memorize the 10,500 names on my distribution list? That would not leave me much time for dong critiques here on BPN....
In fact, I did read all of what you had just posted above in my e-mailed bulletin.
That is good.
I am glad no one gets (had ever been) attacked.
Me too. I have been a close to a bear as George was.
I look forward to all the fanfare and fireworks when someone (God forbid) finally does though!
There would not be much fanfare or many fireworks, probably not even a funeral.... I have been saying two relevant thing for several years:
#1: It is great that the park service did not over-react after Treadwell and his lady friend had been killed and eaten (that after they allowed him to continue his shennanigans for way too many years.
#2: If any photographer/float planer/bear viewer is killed or even attacked I would expect that all permits would be revoked immediately. Not sure what would happen if a camper or hiker got chowed on. (So note that the latter is much more likely to happen.)
As I wrote in the Notes today, I am aware of the risks. But they are very small. You have to have been there to believe that.
Respectfully
You are taking this way too personally.
I guess I am ONE of the above?
That would be correct.
Either way, if this is the community that the ownership preaches then we are all entitled to comment as long as it is done in a civilized manner right?
Absoultey; what would make you think otherwise????? All that I was trying to do was make the point that the two comments had already been (asked) and answered.
Either way, if you were more in tune with who is subscribed to your bulletins then you would know that I already do and have been a subscriber for a couple of years.
I figured that you were. Are you suggesting that I memorize the 10,500 names on my distribution list? That would not leave me much time for dong critiques here on BPN....
In fact, I did read all of what you had just posted above in my e-mailed bulletin.
That is good.
I am glad no one gets (had ever been) attacked.
Me too. I have been a close to a bear as George was.
I look forward to all the fanfare and fireworks when someone (God forbid) finally does though!
There would not be much fanfare or many fireworks, probably not even a funeral.... I have been saying two relevant thing for several years:
#1: It is great that the park service did not over-react after Treadwell and his lady friend had been killed and eaten (that after they allowed him to continue his shennanigans for way too many years.
#2: If any photographer/float planer/bear viewer is killed or even attacked I would expect that all permits would be revoked immediately. Not sure what would happen if a camper or hiker got chowed on. (So note that the latter is much more likely to happen.)
As I wrote in the Notes today, I am aware of the risks. But they are very small. You have to have been there to believe that.
Respectfully
More seriously:
re:
I wonder what would happen if the 20-year attack free period suddenly ended?
If the 20-year attack free period ended--suddenly or not--someone would get attacked, injured, and possibly killed. For sure. And then it would be likelihood that all bear-viewing permits would be eliminated.
These are wild animals and people still tend to forget that.
Are you suggesting that I have forgotten that?
Who would get sued in that case?
Possibly me. Possibly the tour operator. But surely not the bear. And probably not the park service.
In view of the fact that you stated that you had read today's notes I admit to being somewhat puzzled as to the purpose of your post. Please do explain.
re:
I wonder what would happen if the 20-year attack free period suddenly ended?
If the 20-year attack free period ended--suddenly or not--someone would get attacked, injured, and possibly killed. For sure. And then it would be likelihood that all bear-viewing permits would be eliminated.
These are wild animals and people still tend to forget that.
Are you suggesting that I have forgotten that?
Who would get sued in that case?
Possibly me. Possibly the tour operator. But surely not the bear. And probably not the park service.
In view of the fact that you stated that you had read today's notes I admit to being somewhat puzzled as to the purpose of your post. Please do explain.
I can confirm here that John Rain was not the cowardly JR. (Yeah, there's got to be a TV show joke in there somewhere....) And, catch this, I pretty much agree with every thing that John Rain had to say above.
I would be interested, however, to see what he would do if he ever gets there and has bears on all four sides of the group when one of them approaches out of curiosity. That may sound far-fetched but it is not. I have been in bays with 19 and 39 bears fishing. This year our top count was 14 in view at once. And some of those were behind us....
Were I not confident in my guide I simply would quit going. Heck, if I get eaten next year you can all start and "I Told You So" thread in my memory. Anyone care to bet on it?
I would be interested, however, to see what he would do if he ever gets there and has bears on all four sides of the group when one of them approaches out of curiosity. That may sound far-fetched but it is not. I have been in bays with 19 and 39 bears fishing. This year our top count was 14 in view at once. And some of those were behind us....
Were I not confident in my guide I simply would quit going. Heck, if I get eaten next year you can all start and "I Told You So" thread in my memory. Anyone care to bet on it?
Á
Ákos Lumnitzer
Guest
To be honest, I posted the initial post before I read the Bulletin. The bulletin gets delivered to an older e-mail address provided by my ISP. Anyway, glad no one is hurt and while I am not questioning YOUR ability as a guide or your guide's ability, it does look worrying for perhaps anyone who is not privy to the scenario and that is simply all I am saying. One of our local wildlife rescue people were just there for a month (in the very same area as you) and loved it. They too went with a guide and came back with their own skins and recommended it highly. When your @ss does get a chewing I will be first to say "I told you so!".
When your @ss does get a chewing I will be first to say "I told you so!".
Joerg Rockenberger
Well-known member
Thanks.
No more of those please.
That's exactly my concern. How would I or others in my tour group react? I sure hope I as well as everyone else in the group have steel nerves like George and you and stay put. But how can you be sure that I or the person next to me doesn't freak out?
And I totally understand that your group has been in a situation where there was no other option than to let the bear approach as there was no escape route. Maybe the responsibility of the guide and the tour organizer is to make sure that there always is an escape route. Again, I don't have enough experience to give advice on how to handle such situation but it might be a thought for discussion.
And please don't get eaten next year!
JR
PS: by the way, which bulletin you're talking about? Last one I received is #298.
Last edited:
Ákos,
re:
I am not questioning YOUR ability as a guide or your guide's ability; it does look worrying for perhaps anyone who is not privy to the scenario and that is simply all I am saying.
Understood and agree. You need to have spent some time there to understand.
One of our local wildlife rescue people were just there for a month (in the very same area as you) and loved it. They too went with a guide and came back with their own skins and recommended it highly.
Jeez, for a moment I thought that they came back with their own bear skins.
When your @ss does get a chewing I will be first to say "I told you so!".
If that happens I will not be around to hear it....
You did miss this one:
AL: Either way, if this is the community that the ownership preaches then we are all entitled to comment as long as it is done in a civilized manner right?
AM: Absoultey; what would make you think otherwise?????
re:
I am not questioning YOUR ability as a guide or your guide's ability; it does look worrying for perhaps anyone who is not privy to the scenario and that is simply all I am saying.
Understood and agree. You need to have spent some time there to understand.
One of our local wildlife rescue people were just there for a month (in the very same area as you) and loved it. They too went with a guide and came back with their own skins and recommended it highly.
Jeez, for a moment I thought that they came back with their own bear skins.
When your @ss does get a chewing I will be first to say "I told you so!".
If that happens I will not be around to hear it....
You did miss this one:
AL: Either way, if this is the community that the ownership preaches then we are all entitled to comment as long as it is done in a civilized manner right?
AM: Absoultey; what would make you think otherwise?????
B
Bryan Hix
Guest
That was an interesting debate (although I guess according the JR it wasn't). When I first saw the photo I thought, you are either crazy, scared to death, or extremely brave. Either way, after reading the banter, I guess I see it as the same as if you want to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, God Bless you. If you get in an accident, I'm sure you calculated that risk when you hopped on the bike. My friend invited me this year to flyfish Katmai and unfortunately I couldn't go. The photos they sent of bears right next to them in the river pretty much freaked me out. Although I respect and am in awe of North America's largest predator, my primal fear of bears will prevent me from ever being that close to one. Same to my toothy friend, the shark. So I say, God Bless to those who have the guts to walk among them.
Hi Brian, It is a thrill when you can smell their breath. As for riding a motorcycle, you would have to look up the stats but I am thinking the that number of folks with their brains splattered on the street, road, or highway in bike accidents is thousands, heck tens of thousands times or more at least than the total number of folks who have been killed by bears in the last two centuries on the whole planet.
I will gladly walk with the bears but you will never catch me on a motorcycle helmet or not.
B
Bryan Hix
Guest
Artie, I agree. I think I might walk with bears before I would ride a cycle without a helmet too. I jumped out of a plane once and loved it. However now that I have kids, I try to mitigate my risks a lot more these days.
Good plan Brian! I would kiss a bear before I would get on a motorcycle with a helmet....
Mark Fuge
Well-known member
Having been in a situation similar with a common Black Bear in Yosemite a few years ago, I would say move back and get the bear into the focal range of the lens in use. Which would be a safer distance than shown in the photo.
We were attending an outdoor Kodak presentation in Yosemite, a few years ago, with a group of about 20 tourist and a Kodak "instructor". During the talk, a mother bear and her cub entered the group and wondered around, checking the camera bags and backpacks for scents. Most just picked up their gear and stepped out of her way. The "instructor" went bananas. We were not scared, but concerned for all of the tourists there. Being a black bear, it was less threatening than the Alaskan Brown. But still not an everyday experience. These people did not have prior bear experiences, though thankfully they acted properly at that time.
I feel your guide was wrong to let the bear get that close to any of his tour members. No matter how much experience he had. It should only have been based on how much experience he knew that George had with the bears up close. He should not judge the incident on his knowledge, when there is the slightest chance that others are a "potential victim". It would be different if the bear suddenly came out of the woods and walked in front of the group. But it appears from all indications that there was a lead time to safely separate the bear from the tour members. That is what should have been done.
Luckily everything worked out well and the photo was shot, not the bear.
We were attending an outdoor Kodak presentation in Yosemite, a few years ago, with a group of about 20 tourist and a Kodak "instructor". During the talk, a mother bear and her cub entered the group and wondered around, checking the camera bags and backpacks for scents. Most just picked up their gear and stepped out of her way. The "instructor" went bananas. We were not scared, but concerned for all of the tourists there. Being a black bear, it was less threatening than the Alaskan Brown. But still not an everyday experience. These people did not have prior bear experiences, though thankfully they acted properly at that time.
I feel your guide was wrong to let the bear get that close to any of his tour members. No matter how much experience he had. It should only have been based on how much experience he knew that George had with the bears up close. He should not judge the incident on his knowledge, when there is the slightest chance that others are a "potential victim". It would be different if the bear suddenly came out of the woods and walked in front of the group. But it appears from all indications that there was a lead time to safely separate the bear from the tour members. That is what should have been done.
Luckily everything worked out well and the photo was shot, not the bear.
- Status
