Polar Bear, person killed (1 Viewer)

[Andy Adcock]

Another incident near Longyearbyen.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-53945950

I'd have thought that being in a tent here with Bears, desperate for food, would be inherantly dangerous and an incident such as this was almost inevitable.

In 2011, a British teen was killed, also in his tent if I remember correctly.

 

[Ries]

Materials to build a fence around the campsite were there, only setting it up was delayed, due to corona... They had reports there was a bear roaming around town. And still there seems to have not been a nightwatch? Sounds like the situation has been underestimated... Really sad. The victim was a/the manager of the campsite.

 

[Deb Burhinus]

? Sounds like the situation has been underestimated... Really sad. The victim was a/the manager of the campsite.

Yeah, really sad for the 2 year old hungry cub that was killed too. They already successfully drove the mother away by helicopter a few days earlier. Perhaps it’s about time Svalberd considered retreating it’s human leisure/tourist habitat in response to polar bear’s shrinking habitat due to AGW?

 

[Ries]

Yeah, really sad for the 2 year old hungry cub that was killed too. They already successfully drove the mother away by helicopter a few days earlier. Perhaps it’s about time Svalberd considered retreating it’s human leisure/tourist habitat in response to polar bear’s shrinking habitat due to AGW?

Agree, what needs to be the priority...man's leisure or nature's survival? I was surprised there is a campsite there, ecotourism...there's that discussion again.

 

[PYRTLE]

Tragedy in many ways. I also think the campsite should be closed down, regardless of lost income. By all means continue with safer, ecotourism and scientific research studies.

Obviously the trained manager made a fatal error. He was notified of the recent incidents and closeness of the bears, yet took a huge risk and ignored the safety measures in place.

Why kill the bear? I guess because it had attacked rather than been scared away, and probably likely to do so again, though they are recognised as an apex predator / scavenger.

Humans continue to be stupid and thoughtless.

 

[birdboybowley]

Yep what a waste of life....and I don't mean humans

 

[Andy Adcock]

Tragedy in many ways. I also think the campsite should be closed down, regardless of lost income. By all means continue with safer, ecotourism and scientific research studies.

Obviously the trained manager made a fatal error. He was notified of the recent incidents and closeness of the bears, yet took a huge risk and ignored the safety measures in place.

Why kill the bear? I guess because it had attacked rather than been scared away, and probably likely to do so again, though they are recognised as an apex predator / scavenger.

Humans continue to be stupid and thoughtless.

Agree totally, close the camp site at the very least and why not sedate and relocate the Bear as had been done with its mother and her other cub?

 

[Arthur Red Rod]

Yep what a waste of life....and I don't mean humans

Not cool. That kind of thinking is equally destructive to both nature and man in the long run. Eco-authoritarianism is NOT in fashion this season. :t:

 

[Farnboro John]

Not cool. That kind of thinking is equally destructive to both nature and man in the long run. Eco-authoritarianism is NOT in fashion this season. :t:

Its not eco-authoritarianism. It is an absence of anthropocentricity.

Any way you look at it there is no ducking the fact that there are seven billion humans on the planet and less than a hundred thousand Polar Bears. The planetary relative value of each as individuals has to be considered in a new light, and quite honestly that's a moral question that has been ducked by the economic-growth maniacs and the melodramatic "everything is a human tragedy" idiots alike for far too long.

If humans go into the habitat occupied by a Polar Bear or a Tiger or a Great White Shark and find out the hard way that they aren't at the top of the food chain, that shouldn't cause retributive action against the wildlife. The human race can spare the individuals better than the predator species can.

John

 

[dantheman]

A bit of a tragedy for all concerned tbh.

For different reasons.

 

[Arthur Red Rod]

Its not eco-authoritarianism. It is an absence of anthropocentricity.

Any way you look at it there is no ducking the fact that there are seven billion humans on the planet and less than a hundred thousand Polar Bears. The planetary relative value of each as individuals has to be considered in a new light, and quite honestly that's a moral question that has been ducked by the economic-growth maniacs and the melodramatic "everything is a human tragedy" idiots alike for far too long.

If humans go into the habitat occupied by a Polar Bear or a Tiger or a Great White Shark and find out the hard way that they aren't at the top of the food chain, that shouldn't cause retributive action against the wildlife. The human race can spare the individuals better than the predator species can.

John

John, who will enforce the laws that will inevitably be required to preserve these beautiful creatures? It must be a responsible, ethical citizenry cooperating through democratic processes. Such people do not flippantly brush off the loss of human life under any circumstances. Those who do fall on the path of eco-authoritarianism and inevitably, eco-fascism. A world where humans are thrown into the chasm of political ideology for the sake of animals, just like we now do to animals for the sake of humans, is not a world I want to live in and I will vehemently oppose it. It's all of us, together with love in our hearts and an understanding of scientific principles that will fix the problem.

 

[birdboybowley]

Its not eco-authoritarianism. It is an absence of anthropocentricity.

Any way you look at it there is no ducking the fact that there are seven billion humans on the planet and less than a hundred thousand Polar Bears. The planetary relative value of each as individuals has to be considered in a new light, and quite honestly that's a moral question that has been ducked by the economic-growth maniacs and the melodramatic "everything is a human tragedy" idiots alike for far too long.

If humans go into the habitat occupied by a Polar Bear or a Tiger or a Great White Shark and find out the hard way that they aren't at the top of the food chain, that shouldn't cause retributive action against the wildlife. The human race can spare the individuals better than the predator species can.

John

:clap:

 

[opisska]

There's really no need to jump out of place after reading this slightly sensationalized story. Svalbard takes bear protection very seriously, but mistakes do happen even tragic ones. You can rest assured that there will be detailed investigation, the company responsible will lokely pay a brutal fine and any people found in violation of regulations (and alive) will as well.

Yes, there is a lot of irresponsible human activity in habitats of endangered animals, but Svalbard really isn't a good example to pick to cry about that, they already do more than most people can imagine to protect the bears.