|
|
<$BlogRSDURL$> Archives
|
They shoot bears, don't they? Yah, they do, Terry. And thanks again for making me sound like a complete nincompoop. Ahhh it's ok. It's not like anyone actually reads your rag anyways. Except... well. Damn.Why does it seem attacks by bears are getting worse? It may be that we no longer seem scary to them. Terry O'Neill - August 8, 2005 Merlyn Carter, a 71-year-old bush pilot, was killed by a black bear at his remote fishing camp about 300 kilometres east of Yellowknife, N.W.T., on June 14. On the same day, a black bear charged Venetia George while she was hanging laundry in the backyard of her Londonderry, N.S., home. Less than two weeks before that, Isabelle Dube, 35, was attacked and killed by a grizzly bear while jogging along a forest trail near Canmore, Alta. On May 27, it was forestry worker Julia Gerlach, 27, mauled by a black bear near Fort St. John, B.C. In the wake of so many bear attacks, wildlife biologist Stephen Herrero of the University of Calgary probably summed up what most of us were thinking when he told reporters June 16, with so many attacks "coming in such close proximity to another, it almost seems like the bears have gone wild or something." Herrero has spent enough time in the woods to know that bears were always wild and, moreover, notes the number of attacks this year is not out of the ordinary. But it's no doubt true that some Canadians, raised on cartoon images of talking bears and indoctrinated by animal rights and preservationist philosophy through grade school, might well have formed the naive belief that the natural state of affairs between bears and humans is one of mutual respect. However, the bears responsible for the attacks were acting exactly like the wild, omnivorous predators that bears have always been. It's human attitudes towards bears that have changed--to the point where Canadians had best either readjust their attitudes, or prepare themselves for a lot more ursine horror stories. "A lot of people have kind of evolved into living in a fantasy world where they think we shouldn't kill anything anymore," says outdoorsman Gary Shelton. "There's an unreality about what it takes to survive in this world." The Bella Coola, B.C.-based author of two bestselling books about bears believes the best way to manage big carnivores is to keep their numbers in check, particularly around populated areas. Aggressive hunting not only limits bear population, but also serves to educate surviving bears about the dangers of coming too close to humans. That philosophy may run headlong into the popular pro-environment, anti-gun attitudes that prevail today, but Shelton believes it's just plain realistic. Especially compared to the sort of wishful thinking that drives wildlife management policies in this country. The grizzly that attacked Dube, for example, had ambled into Canmore only days prior and locals said it had been acting predatorily. But instead of killing the animal, wildlife officials captured it and humanely relocated it to a few kilometres from the town site. Only after it returned, and killed Dube, did they finally put down Bear 99. But even that was too much for some of the louder voices of conservationism that see the bears as victims. In the wake of Dube's death, environmental groups were quick to blame the attack on Canmore real estate developers who were increasingly encroaching on the bears' territory. Gerlach, who survived the mauling, was distressed to hear that the bear that tore her scalp off was eventually killed. "It's sad that that had to happen," Gerlach told reporters. "We are the ones who are invading their territories, so we have to be careful. But it was a natural response. It was just in him." Megan Pratt, a Calgary Herald commentator, wrote that she was "stunned" the bear that killed Dube had been shot. "This seems a little backwards to me--the bear was in its natural habitat, the human was not," she wrote. "For whatever reason, we believe we have a bigger priority over these animals. Call me crazy, but I believe these animals have a little more priority over us, especially in areas such as Canmore." When pressed in an interview, Pratt could not explain why she thought it was more "natural" for a bear to be in a forest than a human, but she did say she regretted that human development and settlement disturbs bears' natural habitat. "It just bothers me to no end that we have to develop all of this land," she declared. On the other hand, she added, "I'm definitely not condoning the animal's action in killing people." In fact, she said aggressive animals that attack people should, indeed, be put down. Asked if she was, thereby, retracting her published statements, she answered, "I have no real logical answers to what people should be doing and why the bears attacked, and what would stop them, and what we should be doing. I really don't know. I'm just a person with an opinion." It's not just Pratt (who happens to work in real estate development) who's finding it increasingly difficult to reconcile animal rights with human rights. But those who have spent their lives forced to coexist with nature know that killing a predator isn't about justice--but survival. Shelton believes Canadians have to re-educate themselves about the true nature of the natural world, and he suggests that once society re-embraces the understanding that nature is not benign, but is red in tooth and claw, fatal human-bear encounters will diminish. Herrero agrees that if bears are hunted aggressively enough, they will pose less of a threat to humans, though the trick is to ensure not to over-hunt them and threaten their existence. Humans, Herrero adds, often want to have it both ways in their interactions with nature: complete security in a completely natural setting. That's just not possible. How best to balance the need to give animals, such as bears, enough land to prosper, while at the same time providing for human needs, "is a huge issue to grapple with," he says. One radical solution, currently being examined at Lake Louise, Alta., is to surround the entire community with an electric fence to keep out dangerous animals. Such a fence would also enclose humans, of course. "You can see it as one or the other, but clearly it's both," says Herrero. The ultimate goal, he adds, is to find a way to live with nature, "without tearing it apart." (In light of the recent bear-attack fatalities, he might have added without nature tearing humans apart.) Regardless of how best to prevent fatal encounters between bears and humans, the prevailing view among most urban types is that bears are not blameworthy. "I think humans are the culprits, where they expect the animals to squeeze around the towns," says Cheryl Chetkiewicz, a wildlife biologist at the University of Alberta. As Gerlach noted, it is only "natural" for bears to protect their young and their territory by attacking humans they encounter. But how it became unnatural for humans to defend their property and families from those same predators is the question nature lovers never seem to get around to answering. Posted by Bella at 8:14 PM# 0 Comments:
|
