It’s nuanced, but the idea that a bear would suddenly just “decide people are a threat/food” is misguided. The bottom line is it’s wilderness, the odds are very high they did something careless like surprise the bear or get between it and its cubs, which wouldn’t indicate atypical behavior on the bear’s part or suggest it’d pose extra danger in the future. Bottom line I don’t agree with the general approach of tourists wandering out in the woods, doing something careless which gets them killed, and then animals being killed indiscriminately as a result, I think it’s a very arrogant approach by people in general.
Allegedly they were “experienced outdoors backpackers”. Guessing the dog being there played a role in the attack - animals can make wildlife more aggressive, and if it wasn’t on a leash, it could’ve attacked the grizzly, provoking it. Then again, its entirely possible the grizzly learned that humans have food from some past hikers, and tried to get at the food from these guys.
If Parks Canada found a grizzly in the area and stated it was acting aggressive, I’d be inclined to believe them. They know animal behaviour pretty well.
I agree with you completely. I made my guess because they usually mention if a bear had cubs present during an attack, but it is an oversimplification to say the bear decided to see people that way for sure. All I meant by it is, once a bear is triggered into overcoming that fear or wariness and attacking/killing and possibly eating a human, there is a higher risk of them doing so again (unsurprisingly, if the behaviour was successful from the bear’s perspective).
It is a very arrogant and anthrocentric approach. I don’t condone it but I also don’t expect anything better (such as reducing human encroachment into their territory) because I am rightfully(?) jaded.
It’s nuanced, but the idea that a bear would suddenly just “decide people are a threat/food” is misguided. The bottom line is it’s wilderness, the odds are very high they did something careless like surprise the bear or get between it and its cubs, which wouldn’t indicate atypical behavior on the bear’s part or suggest it’d pose extra danger in the future. Bottom line I don’t agree with the general approach of tourists wandering out in the woods, doing something careless which gets them killed, and then animals being killed indiscriminately as a result, I think it’s a very arrogant approach by people in general.
Allegedly they were “experienced outdoors backpackers”. Guessing the dog being there played a role in the attack - animals can make wildlife more aggressive, and if it wasn’t on a leash, it could’ve attacked the grizzly, provoking it. Then again, its entirely possible the grizzly learned that humans have food from some past hikers, and tried to get at the food from these guys.
If Parks Canada found a grizzly in the area and stated it was acting aggressive, I’d be inclined to believe them. They know animal behaviour pretty well.
I agree with you completely. I made my guess because they usually mention if a bear had cubs present during an attack, but it is an oversimplification to say the bear decided to see people that way for sure. All I meant by it is, once a bear is triggered into overcoming that fear or wariness and attacking/killing and possibly eating a human, there is a higher risk of them doing so again (unsurprisingly, if the behaviour was successful from the bear’s perspective).
It is a very arrogant and anthrocentric approach. I don’t condone it but I also don’t expect anything better (such as reducing human encroachment into their territory) because I am rightfully(?) jaded.