Is it right to shoot a bear that is attacking you in its territory?

[turboether]

I mean, sure, if you don't want to die.

[Jonnusthegreat]

The bear attacked, defense is needed. That is how it is. The human race is still the higher up on the chain. Now, if the bear was shot for no actual reason, then I would've gotten angry.

And you can't, even though how some claim it, you can't compare an animal with a human as we speak. This doesn't mean you can shoot the burglar, nor does it mean it is okay to shoot a bear unless it is a necessity.

- - - Updated - - -

And if we are to go to the level of 'equal rights' between a bear and a human, then I can write it up differently.

Human pack arrives on bear's territory. Bear attacks pack for defending its own territory. Bear loses battle against the pack. Common thing in nature, bears lose and gain territories from other animals too. Humans are just more prepared.

But the human entered the bear's territory. The human attacked first. The human might not have known, but is the aggressor.

[cubby]

A new incident is sparking outrage around the world, that revolves around a Polar Bear being shot for attempting to eat a cruise ship employee. The most obvious criticism is that they shouldn't have been in the Polar Bear's territory, but does that mean they should have allowed their fellow employee to be eaten by the bear?

Do bears and humans have equal rights? Some might see this like a burglar breaking into your house, and if you were a bear the most logical thing to do to a burglar would be to eat it. Of course, if you believe humans have superior rights to bears, then this argument, and the arguments of the PETA crowd in general, sound ludicrous.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/polar-b...ay-2018-07-30/

Any time there is a decision to kill wildlife or let the wildlife kill the human, the choice is always going to be kill the wildlife. For about a half-dozen really solid reasons, it cannot be any other way.

(I'd leave room for poachers as an exception, maybe)

[ParanoiD84]

Shame the bear didnt get it's stupid human dinner.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

I’m I the only one hoping to find the pelt on eBay for some awesome shaman cosplay at Blizzcon?

[Bigbazz]

Yes its right to shoot the bear if you don't feel like dying.

But the human entered the bear's territory. The human attacked first. The human might not have known, but is the aggressor.

That's not an objective fact, it's a point of view that you've created to support your opinion.. If a bear wanders into my neighbourhood and I attack the bear, can I say that the bear attacked first by default of wandering into my neighbourhood? No, that's ridiculous.

In this case if the bear attacks you and you don't kill it then you die, you'd have to be pretty fucking stupid not to defend yourself.

[Thagrynor]

You are right. A few thousand was not accurate. Thanks for pointing that out. But being vulnerable is the stage right before becoming endangered. Other than for research and other justified reasons, there is no reason for people to go into areas polar bears normally inhabit which are not suitable for humans, as tourists. If people want to see live polar bears, this is what zoos are for.

While of course people have the right to defend themselves from any animal attacking them, but there should be sections of the world reserved and protected for certain species.

Well, a few things here:

Yes, they are vulnerable, but the vulnerable category actually is rather vague, in terms of there being a large number of reasons for why they would consider a species to be vulnerable. Point in case, currently, the IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature) lists 5196 animal species and 6789 plant species as vulnerable. Based on their definitions to get on the list, the likely reason polar bears are listed have to do with the declining quality and reduction in area of their habitats (a common problem with regards to things like deforestation as well). The point here is simply that their population numbers are not the cause of their status, but mans impact on nature. So, unlike with animals that have actual population issues without the habitat issues where killing an individual animal could have repercussions with regards to the ability to increase populations, for polar bears, the only way to increase populations is to fix climate related issues (ie going green). It does not justify killing an animal for sport or whatever, but the actual killing is less impactful with regards to their status.

You then say talk about "areas polar bears inhabit that are not suitable for humans" but the bulk of polar bear populations live in northern Canada where there is a large, diverse population of natives (the Inuits) as well as in Svalbard there are populations of other native tribes (the Sami peoples). Both have, over centuries, adapted to living in these areas. Heck, they ever have their own version of the Olympics in which indigenous northern tribes compete, involving games that are basically unheard of in other places in the world. Additionally, due to adaptation and endurance/durability, there are very few places on Earth that are straight up "not suitable for humans". And even then, it is mostly due to the economics/technological advancements needed to make it suitable.

The part that confuses me though is your outrage over the killing and then advocating for "if people want to see a live polar bear, go to a zoo." Zoos keep animals in captivity, an activity that (depending on species and zoo) is akin to prison, and in some cases, more akin to torture. A number of animals have been known to shut down and become a shell of what they normally are in nature when held in captivity. Elephants, for example, are highly social animals within their herds. Elephants have been known to recognize other members of a former herd after decades of being apart. Putting an elephant alone (or even with just 1 or 2 others) in a zoo can damage that animal psychologically the same way putting a human in solitary confinement for years on end would damage a person. If the point is that the animals have every right to survive and should be valued as equal to humans, putting them in zoos should be the last thing advocated for.

Additionally, there are a number of areas and places in the world set aside for the protection of animals. They are called wild life reserves and national parks. You can walk through most of them, but they are primarily there to protect and save animals. You cannot simply say, "Well, since people don't tend to live around here much, then this entire section of the planet should be banned from human travel/visitation."

The reality is, in this specific situation, Svalbard is a common tourist destination in that part of the world. Additionally, polar bears are actually quite quick and, due to their hunting patterns and techniques, often move almost silently across the snow when they choose to. The people who stopped had every right to stop. There is literally zero indication that they stopped to look at the polar bears (based on the article, at least). There is zero indication if they knew of the polar bears being there prior to disembarking the ship they were on. Based on what I would assume would have been mentioned but wasn't, it wouldn't be unreasonable to say there is a moderate chance that the tourists weren't aware of the bears presence when they disembarked and, given that they tried to scare it off prior to resorting to shooting the bear, they weren't intending harm to any local animal populations. If such a case, it would be the same as you walking in, say, the desert areas around a city in the southwest and a coyote came to attack you and someone shooting it to protect you.

Does it suck that a polar bear died? Yes. Of course. Is it wrong to have saved the person though? No.

- - - Updated - - -

But the human entered the bear's territory. The human attacked first. The human might not have known, but is the aggressor.

Firstly, a bear's territory can span into the 100's of square mile range. If simply "entering" that area is the problem, then I guarantee that it is a problem occurring very second in the pacific northwest of the US, as well as most of Canada, Norway, Russia, etc.

Secondly, highlight where in the article it stated the humans attacked first. Because the article DOES say they tried to scare the bear off when it attacked, which I find to be an entirely odd thing to mention and do if they were simply attacking the bear first. Simply because the human ended the aggression doesn't mean the human is the aggressor.

[Jonnusthegreat]

Firstly, a bear's territory can span into the 100's of square mile range. If simply "entering" that area is the problem, then I guarantee that it is a problem occurring very second in the pacific northwest of the US, as well as most of Canada, Norway, Russia, etc.

Secondly, highlight where in the article it stated the humans attacked first. Because the article DOES say they tried to scare the bear off when it attacked, which I find to be an entirely odd thing to mention and do if they were simply attacking the bear first. Simply because the human ended the aggression doesn't mean the human is the aggressor.

Entering territory could be perceived as an attack. That's how the bear saw it. It defended itself and its territory and died for it.

Secondly, the article is irrelevant to the debate - the question is whether or not the actions were right.

[Thagrynor]

Entering territory could be perceived as an attack. That's how the bear saw it. It defended itself and its territory and died for it.

Secondly, the article is irrelevant to the debate - the question is whether or not the actions were right.

The article defines what happened. This argument you are making is like saying, "The question is asking if it was right to shoot this bear in this situation, but the situation doesn't matter." The article absolutely DOES matter, as it stipulates the situation. Which further illustrates that your argument is based on some made up accounting OF the situation that the article disproves.

The people were basically standing in an area. Then the bear attacked. The people tried to scare it away. That didn't work. They shot it.

You make it sound like they were some tactical unit that went out with the attempt to surgical assassinate some bear. "They intruded and attacked the bear." False. You are either blind to reality or intentionally lying because .... I dunno .... reasons?

The fact is, the humans did NOT attack the bear. Again, IF they had, why would they have tried to scare it off?

[Ghostpanther]

Do you think that it would be reasonable to ban people from taking guns into these areas, which would make them accurately take the risks into account and make better decisions?

Visitors to the reserve? Yes it would be reasonable. We already restrict here in the US certain areas where firearms are not permitted. But it needs to be a official wild life reserve.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, a few things here:

Yes, they are vulnerable, but the vulnerable category actually is rather vague, in terms of there being a large number of reasons for why they would consider a species to be vulnerable. Point in case, currently, the IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature) lists 5196 animal species and 6789 plant species as vulnerable. Based on their definitions to get on the list, the likely reason polar bears are listed have to do with the declining quality and reduction in area of their habitats (a common problem with regards to things like deforestation as well). The point here is simply that their population numbers are not the cause of their status, but mans impact on nature. So, unlike with animals that have actual population issues without the habitat issues where killing an individual animal could have repercussions with regards to the ability to increase populations, for polar bears, the only way to increase populations is to fix climate related issues (ie going green). It does not justify killing an animal for sport or whatever, but the actual killing is less impactful with regards to their status.

You then say talk about "areas polar bears inhabit that are not suitable for humans" but the bulk of polar bear populations live in northern Canada where there is a large, diverse population of natives (the Inuits) as well as in Svalbard there are populations of other native tribes (the Sami peoples). Both have, over centuries, adapted to living in these areas. Heck, they ever have their own version of the Olympics in which indigenous northern tribes compete, involving games that are basically unheard of in other places in the world. Additionally, due to adaptation and endurance/durability, there are very few places on Earth that are straight up "not suitable for humans". And even then, it is mostly due to the economics/technological advancements needed to make it suitable.

The part that confuses me though is your outrage over the killing and then advocating for "if people want to see a live polar bear, go to a zoo." Zoos keep animals in captivity, an activity that (depending on species and zoo) is akin to prison, and in some cases, more akin to torture. A number of animals have been known to shut down and become a shell of what they normally are in nature when held in captivity. Elephants, for example, are highly social animals within their herds. Elephants have been known to recognize other members of a former herd after decades of being apart. Putting an elephant alone (or even with just 1 or 2 others) in a zoo can damage that animal psychologically the same way putting a human in solitary confinement for years on end would damage a person. If the point is that the animals have every right to survive and should be valued as equal to humans, putting them in zoos should be the last thing advocated for.

Additionally, there are a number of areas and places in the world set aside for the protection of animals. They are called wild life reserves and national parks. You can walk through most of them, but they are primarily there to protect and save animals. You cannot simply say, "Well, since people don't tend to live around here much, then this entire section of the planet should be banned from human travel/visitation."

The reality is, in this specific situation, Svalbard is a common tourist destination in that part of the world. Additionally, polar bears are actually quite quick and, due to their hunting patterns and techniques, often move almost silently across the snow when they choose to. The people who stopped had every right to stop. There is literally zero indication that they stopped to look at the polar bears (based on the article, at least). There is zero indication if they knew of the polar bears being there prior to disembarking the ship they were on. Based on what I would assume would have been mentioned but wasn't, it wouldn't be unreasonable to say there is a moderate chance that the tourists weren't aware of the bears presence when they disembarked and, given that they tried to scare it off prior to resorting to shooting the bear, they weren't intending harm to any local animal populations. If such a case, it would be the same as you walking in, say, the desert areas around a city in the southwest and a coyote came to attack you and someone shooting it to protect you.

Does it suck that a polar bear died? Yes. Of course. Is it wrong to have saved the person though? No.

- - - Updated - - -



Firstly, a bear's territory can span into the 100's of square mile range. If simply "entering" that area is the problem, then I guarantee that it is a problem occurring very second in the pacific northwest of the US, as well as most of Canada, Norway, Russia, etc.

Secondly, highlight where in the article it stated the humans attacked first. Because the article DOES say they tried to scare the bear off when it attacked, which I find to be an entirely odd thing to mention and do if they were simply attacking the bear first. Simply because the human ended the aggression doesn't mean the human is the aggressor.

A Natural Park is different. A area specifically designated as a Wildlife Reserve/Preserve certainly should be protected as such. And visitors to them should not be allowed to harm the wildlife there and understand the risks involved or not visit. Native peoples to the region or permanent residents before the area was designated a wildlife reserve, of course should be exempt to some degree.

Polar bears are well known to not have any fear of man.

[Lochton]

But the human entered the bear's territory. The human attacked first. The human might not have known, but is the aggressor.

I didn't read about the human attacking first, if so, then I am wrong. As for a human being in the area being seen as an aggression, sorry but I think this is void when a species becomes the largest, sadly. So, when the bear attacks a stranger, the rest of the stranger's pack counters.

[Jonnusthegreat]

I didn't read about the human attacking first, if so, then I am wrong. As for a human being in the area being seen as an aggression, sorry but I think this is void when a species becomes the largest, sadly. So, when the bear attacks a stranger, the rest of the stranger's pack counters.

Just entering territory is an attack to the bear. The bear was trying to defend itself against an intruder. It doesn't matter if a beaver enters a bear's territory - it's still aggression. What species you are doesn't matter. Does anyone have to respect the bear's territory? No. But it doesn't change the fact that the bear was defending itself.

[Elim Garak]

It's ok to shoot a bear while it's sleeping in its lair during winter. Twice. Trice. You can also rape it. Whatever you fancy. I don't care.

[ParanoiD84]

It's ok to shoot a bear while it's sleeping in its lair during winter. Twice. Trice. You can also rape it. Whatever you fancy. I don't care.

I would like to see you enter a bear lair just to witness the fun stuff after.

[avitush]

Yes. If I'm armed, and it comes down to a situation where it's me or the bear, damn right the bear is gonna get shot. If there are any consequences for shooting the bear, at least I'll be alive to deal with them later.

And yeah, I wouldn't just stand by and watch someone get eaten or mauled to death if I had the means to help.

Both of those regardless of where it happens.

[Lochton]

Just entering territory is an attack to the bear. The bear was trying to defend itself against an intruder. It doesn't matter if a beaver enters a bear's territory - it's still aggression. What species you are doesn't matter. Does anyone have to respect the bear's territory? No. But it doesn't change the fact that the bear was defending itself.

But, it does matter what species you are. When you are the most destructive and aggressive species on the planet, then it matters. The bear might have been defending itself against another but as soon as it attacked the other, the rest of the 'pack' had permission to defend too.

- - - Updated - - -

Polar Bears don't have territories.


https://polarbearsinternational.org/...bears/habitat/

Actually a good read..

[Jonnusthegreat]

Polar Bears don't have territories.


https://polarbearsinternational.org/...bears/habitat/

Then I'm clearly not talking about a polar bear and the OP is misled. I was simply answering the question posed in the OP.

- - - Updated - - -

But, it does matter what species you are. When you are the most destructive and aggressive species on the planet, then it matters. The bear might have been defending itself against another but as soon as it attacked the other, the rest of the 'pack' had permission to defend too.

- - - Updated - - -



Actually a good read..

No, acts of aggression are just that - what you are doesn't matter. The bear just perceived a lesser threat than was actually there. A beaver isn't going to set any alarms off to the bear so it probably doesn't care. A large animal like a human, the bear believes it needs to defend itself. It has no concept of technology and doesn't realize it has no chance.

This is what happens in nature - you defend yourself, you might just get killed.

[Lochton]

No, acts of aggression are just that - what you are doesn't matter. The bear just perceived a lesser threat than was actually there. A beaver isn't going to set any alarms off to the bear so it probably doesn't care. A large animal like a human, the bear believes it needs to defend itself. It has no concept of technology and doesn't realize it has no chance.

This is what happens in nature - you defend yourself, you might just get killed.

Why the hell do you think I say 'sadly'. The bear doesn't know it is opposing a more brutal foe. The bear defended itself and lost against a pack animal. Nothing new. Hence I also said they weren't equal.

[Jonnusthegreat]

Why the hell do you think I say 'sadly'. The bear doesn't know it is opposing a more brutal foe. The bear defended itself and lost against a pack animal. Nothing new. Hence I also said they weren't equal.

I guess I don't understand your point. All I've said is the human was the aggressor and the bear died defending itself.

[Deleted]

No it's not, because you shouldn't be there in the first place.