My wife brought home the Werner Herzog film, Grizzly Man. She found it too upsetting to watch completely.
Subsequently she found this site, http://www.darkroomlab.com/treadwell/archive05.html which features the stills that Treadwell took. Darkroom Labs maintains it is simply presenting the work as Treadwell was a loyal customer. O.K.
For me, the comments of Sven Haakanson Jr. the curator of the local museum were most telling. "For 7,000 years we (aboriginals) have left the grizzlies alone and they have left us alone. Treadwell made them human habituated."
While not wanting to open a debate about dangers to photographers, it would be interesting to explore peoples feelings on the dangers to wildlife by having them become habituated to the increasing exposure to humans, particularly photographers.
In lecture with our local bear guide, somebody brought up the photography of grizzlies that some eco-tours offer. When it was expressed that grizzlies couldn't be all that dangerous if tourists were walking up and snapping their pics, he explained it is a very carefully controlled situation.
Guides go in with rubber bullets and establish a territory for the photographers to shoot from. It is apparently, such a ritual that if a tour doesn't go out by 9:30 in the morning, they don't go out at all. Guests are checked to make sure they have absolutely no food on them.
There is a valid argument to be made that photographic tours are far less harmful than the hunting expeditions they are quickly replacing and a source of replacement income to many remote communities.
However somebody such as Treadwell was in an area that was a remote nature preserve. It begs the question, with increasing pressure on tourism in remote areas, should preserves be precisely that, an area where humans, including photographers, can't venture leaving wildlife to its own devices.
Excelent question. I guess my take on it is that "preserves" should be very carefully controlled with access to photographers as well as scientists and other nature lovers allowed limited entry.
About 2 years ago my wife and I were in Hallo Bay just a few miles from where Treadwell met his fate. It was both expensive and challenging to get to. The living conditions were comfortable wooden floor canvas covered tents. We were only allowed out of camp with an "official" guide. This was certainly not the destination of choice for the people accustomed to Hiltons.
The bear were NOT trained to keep their distance by any rubber bullets or any other means. The guides were expert at leading us to the bear viewing sites at a time that would not intimidate them.While we were on site the bear came toward the salmon river we were near. Thus they came to us.
Yes, the bear were used to seeing about 100 photographers a year. Yes they were acclimated to us enough to generally ignore our presence. However, the over riding theme of the guides was not to interfere with any bear behavior at any time. We were admonished constantly to let the bear be bear. If that meant leaving our location, so be it. If that meant staying really still while a bear walked by rather closely, so be it. We were not allowed ot approach a bear at any time. If a bear were doing some really cool thing a distance away, we could observe but not approach.
So, I guess I am against any form of forceably acclimenting any animal by artificial means such as rubber bullets, fences, electric wires, or any other such means. I am for allowing dedicated wildlife enthusiastis access under controled conditions that do not interfere with the animal's normal course of business. I believe these locations should remain remote and difficult to get to. I believe the living conditions should reflect the experience and privlege of being in the wilderness. By doing this the visitors will be limited to serious naturalists, photographers and others. The party goers and casual thrill seekers will be eliminated by virtue of the challange of the conditions. The animals will be acclimated to the presence of non threatening humans in the background. However they will come ot incorporate us into the general landscape as an interesting non-threatening species of no consequence.
Does this idea place barriers on some with good intentions but do not have the mental or physical capabilities to endure somewhat harsh conditions? Of course it does. Some day I may be one who cannot partake. However, it is just the way it is. There are just some things that not everyone can or should do.
In reality Treadwell practiced most, but not all of these things. The mistake he made was to think he could actually modify bear behavior into allowing him to sleep on their trails and in their grazing grounds. He made the mistake and eventually paid the ultimate price ( and his girlfriend's also) by not just observing bear, but intruding on their natural course of business. In this he violated the basic principle of letting bear be bear and taking joy out of observation and recording their life.
Should we prevent humans from entering remote nature preserves? Imagine for a moment what it would have been like if noone had ever ventured into such areas. It is because humans have gone to such locations that we know those places exist. Through human eyes we see the wonder and beauty of those remote areas and the wildlife that lives there. Through the eyes of other photographers I have seen a fragment of these places and for that I am grateful. I may never go there myself.
I believe the remote natural preserves is true wilderness. Our National Parks have vast natural preserves and only the hardy and determined humans find their way to those places. Access is controlled. Animals remain wild.
Humans and wildlife have co-existed in both a predator/prey and mutual acceptance relationship for thousands of years. In the great scope of things, we need to realize that regardless of Tim Treadwell's intentions and regardless of the good he may have done in his life by bringing images of these creatures to people who otherwise may never have enjoyed them, he repeatedly did stupid things around potentially dangerous creatures. Stupid from the perspective of affording him the continued opportunity to live out his alloted years and continue to enjoy these beautiful beasts in their natural habitat.
A bear is like any other predator - they are opportunistic feeders and will take the "low hanging" fruit before the more difficult meal. These bears were hungry, Tim and his girlfriend were easy pickings. Fat, salmon fed coastal bears have no good reason to attack humans when there is plenty of alternative food and Alaskan fishermen routinely fish streams in immediate proximity with huge brownies and each minds his/her own business. But don't think for a moment that if food were scarce and these bears were really hungry that they wouldn't eat the person fishing the stream just as quickly as they ate Tim.
Zebra and other wildlife graze contentedly in the immediate proximity of lion prides which are well fed having just feasted on a fresh kill. But if the lions are hungry, the prey knows well enough to avoid them like the plague. Humans need to cultivate common sense when they venture into bear country. Never forget that you are potentially a meal for these critters. Tim made the foolish mistake of anthropomorphizing these creatures thinking that they were his "friends." Bears are not your friends or your enemy. Too much Gentle Ben on television has produced generations of humans who have lost touch with reality. You are just another critter a bit lower on the food chain to a bear. You might wander among them for years in safety, lulled into a false sense of security. Then one day the bear is hungry and you become the low hanging fruit. A word to the wise :-)
Lin Evans Wrote: You are just another critter a bit lower on the food chain to a bear. You might wander among them for years in safety, lulled into a false sense of security. Then one day the bear is hungry and you become the low hanging fruit. A word to the wise :-)
This is excellent advice. Just because you can do something does not mean you should.
A week ago last Wednesday we stopped for an afternoon at a Lodge in Cooper Landing in the central Kenai area. We had read in the Anchorage papers that the residents at Cooper where having trouble with brown bears. Poor salmon runs to date had left the bear population we were going to try to photograph hungry and aggressive. We were told not to hike along the river by the hostess in the restaurant. She was serious, we passed. These people have bears in their yards every day. Last Wednesday, a week after we were there, a bear grabbed a service worker in broad daylight on the same Lodge grounds and almost killed her before the bear was driven off.
We just returned from 3 days at Brooks Falls which had a nice run of Salmon last weekend and a load of bears. We in camp had multiple encounters with a small sow and her 3 cubs. I had a surprise from 25 feet with that bear when they popped up within sight of the dining hall on the min camp trail. I still find it unbelievable that so many (too many) people can go there and some do not get killed. When you turn right down that final path to the platform you could accidently meet a new bear, one that is hungry, an old bear that is cranky or get caught up in a bear chase. Some of those bears are starving and most are incredibly stressed from the forced aggregation. There were more than 30 fishing bears visible from the platform and many more on both sides of the river. Those bears all got there the same way we did. You are part of the food chain at that place.
Same bears at both places. Just a thought.
See my picture of Goldilocks nursing her 3 cubs in the Alaska section under the Brooks Survey replies/ thread.
I'll weigh in and add a bit of "ground truth" to this, since I knew/know all the principles mentioned so far and more not named. I also live in bear country and frequently encounter them. Without adding more detail, I think it's important to recognize that Timmy and his fiance' were killed in an area far from normal human actiity and KNOWN to be occupied by bears that didn't like people. The bears had gone there specifically to get away from people. Enter Our Hero with a point to prove, however misguided.
In a nutshell when people first start using an area, the bears have two choices: Leave or get used to it. The latter case is called "habituation." All the agencies here in Alaska work desperately to control and limit habituation around communities, but it happens anyway. About all they can do is make sure that the habituation is not harmful to the bears or to people.
Part of living in bear country is getting acquainted with individual bears whose territory you "share." We form respectful relations with the bears around our house, as do all our neighbors. But every year new faces appear as old ones disappear. Each encounter with a new bear is very tentative. You just don't know what to expect of each other. I've attached a snapshot I took yesterday of one new neighbor. The first time my wife and I encountered him he ran like a scalded cat. This time he had obviously met other people, because he decided to come in for a closer look. (This was shot with a pocket camera and not much lens.) We backed off while talking to him and he eventually lost interest. He's well on his way toward habituation. That can be good or bad, as long as some "rules" are set up and we both respect them.
Here's the bigger question for me:
"Should there be places in bear country set aside strictly for the bears?" Investments in cameras and travel be damned, should they be off limits to photographers and everyone else?
Timmy's 2 bears got killed because they didn't want to be around people, yet he followed them into their chosen refuge anyway. Frankly I have a lot more empathy for the bears and the girlfriend than I do for Timmy. He got what he had coming, but cost three other lives in the process.
Posted by Carl Donohue on September 19, 2008 at 6:36 PM
Hey Hank,
Well, one might suggest he got what we ALL have coming to us, one day or another. :)
From what I understand, (and I'm trying to remember this from the few years ago that it happened) the bear that actually killed him was new to the area .. Tim had probably spent more time there than the bear.
One of the things at Brooks that is interesting is they "close" the viewing platforms after, say, 10pm, because some bears come out then that clearly don't like to be around during the way when so many people are around - so it's good that the NPS respect that.
I think in a place like Katmai or Lake Clark, where bears congregate so heavily, having areas set aside as off-limits to people is probably fine - though I bet you'd find the bears, being bears, travel enough that they wander into surrounding areas with people reasonably frequently. Just as bears habituated to human presence currently wander into areas that can be hunted, and get shot. I think Timmy's actions are WAY less problematic than the system that allows hunting of bears that can be walked up to and shot from 25 yards away.
"From what I understand, (and I'm trying to remember this from the few years ago that it happened) the bear that actually killed him was new to the area .. Tim had probably spent more time there than the bear. "
Negatory, good buddy. Negatory.
It was his first overnight trip in there and was made against all advice from the pilot (a personal friend, and the one who discovered the remains when he returned for a welfare check) and others familiar with the area. He'd been there only once before on a short day trip and was run out by an aggressive bear. The area is adjacent to the popular Halo Bay viewing area, but a known retreat for bears seeking refuge from the bedlam on the tide flats. I've been there. It's very brushy with little more than bear tunnels through the overhead brush. There's one little grassy knoll that the bears appear to use for "king of the hill" with the most dominant bears claiming it. That's EXACTLY where Timmy chose to camp.
As for places like Katmai and Lake Clark with areas off limits to people, that's pretty standard anywhere people congregate to be seen by the bears. And it works.
Nuff sed. I obviously bridle at any representation of Timmy as a victim. As Sven said, people have been living around bears for thousands of years, some more successfullyl than others. Timmy was so far beyond the radical fringe he was over the horizon. Paid for his stupidity, too.
Posted by Carl Donohue on September 19, 2008 at 10:18 PM
Hey Hank,
Thanks - I know the "Grizzly Maze" isn't a good place for a campsite. :) I thought he'd been there before is all.
I'm not sure what you mean by the last comment - what places in Katmai and Lake Clark are off limits to people, outside the Brooks viewing platforms after dark?
Thanks.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Steve Foss on September 19, 2008 at 10:30 PM
So much to learn, and so much to think about. This is an excellent thread, folks.
I don't know much about bear habituation. I live in black bear, wolf and mountain lion country. I don't know squat about grizzlies or browns, except that I don't really want to share the same space with them. If a wolf comes at me I stand a pretty good chance of taking care of business. If a grizzly/brown wants to eat me and I am unarmed, I am dinner. Period.
I'm a wolf guy. I have a case history of 80 wolf/human encounters prepared in 2002 by the state of Alaska. In some, the wolves were aggressive. In some, they attacked. In almost all cases, the aggressive wolves were either ill or were habituated to people through feeding, and had lost their wariness. If a wolf is repeatedly fed by people, it begins to associate people with handouts and, approaching a person and expecting food, can become aggressive when no food is given. That appears to be the case regarding the man killed by wolves in Saskatchewan a few years ago. If my memory hasn't failed me, investigators found evidence the wolves were food/human habituated. And what happened? Dead person, dead wolves.
I know of at least one person within 15 miles of Ely who regularly feeds wolves on her property. She is asking for trouble for anyone those wolves approach, as well as the wolves themselves. I photographed a black wolf not far from Ely last fall, which I posted here on NPN. It was a female from the very pack that gets fed by this person. The wolf was trotting down the road and came into the ditch up up into the woods and trotted right toward me, knowing I was there the whole time and stopping about 40 feet away. I fired a burst of shots and then ducked to get a little lower for a better angle. Yeah, I know, not a good idea to get lower when a large predator is staring at you. When I did that, she put her head down and looked intently at me for about five seconds. That's called an assessment stare. She clearly was weighing whether I was food or had food. An unhabituated wolf almost certainly would never have approached me so closely in the first place, and would not have hung around as long as this one did.
While I was thankful for the opportunity to get the capture, I understood why it happened, and was not at all happy about that.
As for the idea of roping off tracts of wilderness and keeping all humans out of those tracts, it is attractive to some in theory, but it's a false attraction. It would take a vast area to remove all impacts of humankind. And, let's face it, as sentient beings on this planet, we are as much a part of nature as the nature we have removed ourselves from. Given that perspective, to forbid humans into certain tracts in an effort to protect environments from human influence is both egocentric and fatuous. While we are not the center of the universe, we are as much a part of the universe as lichens, leopards and lice.
David, thanks for starting this thread. I think enough time has passed so the Treadwell incident can be discussed without chest thumping and controversy. And Hank, thanks for introducing ground truth I hadn't heard before.
I was including things like the daily closed periods at Brooks and McNeil, even the requirement for anglers to back off and yield the water at Brooks- along with geographic closures. Many geographic closures are defacto. There's just no easy way to get to them. Others are statutory. We've got them here on Kodiak such as Connecticut Creek. It's critical habitat to the bears and past attempts to allow humans in to entertain bears with their camera antics have proven too disruptive to the bears.
In contrast to Steve, I think in Alaska at least, there should be areas adjacent to all popular viewing areas that are closed entirely to humans, just to give the bears a break. I'd rather see that than see bears try to enforce a "closed" area of their own such as Timmy entered with sad consequences for the enforcers. Bears will stll come to the open areas while there is an adjacent "rest area" for bears that prefer to feed at night when the people aren't around, then withdraw with some assurance that they won't be hassled.
We've got just such a non-statutory closed area in the headwaters of a creek about a mile from our house. There are at least a couple of NASTY bears up there. While other bears not so bothered by people are seen downstream, the rough ones only come down into the lower watershed to feed at night, and you see their tracks. But anyone who goes way upstream is likely to have a nasty encounter. Locals know it, and in general the terrain is too tough for tourists. We avoid it, while the tourists don't want to work that hard when other more tolerant bears will venture downstream to them in daylight.
Posted by Steve Foss on September 20, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Hank, in the case of those bears I agree with you. My (slight) rant was more specifically about declaring large acreages of wilderness off limits to humans to try to completely eliminate human impact on the whole environment.
I certanily agree Steve! In fact, we seem to agree so often on a range of topics, I suspected it was a question of semantics and wading through "web speak."
In my eyes, the stellar bear viewing program in the world is the one run by ADF&G at McNeil River. It provides a well-informed mix of controlled human activities while allowing bears to be bears. The recent opening of an adjacent region of state lands to hunting has really stirred up a hornets nest up here, fed by a TV news crew who went out there to cover the first hunts. You'll have to search the site to find the piece from last fall, but it's not pretty.
Posted by Carl Donohue on September 20, 2008 at 1:23 PM
Hey Hank,
I certainly never made any suggestion Tim was a 'victim' - he lived his life the way he wanted to.
Thanks for the clarification - I see what you mean a bit better now. That makes sense to have places where the bears aren't constantly bombarded with clicking shutters, etc.
Discussion
13 repliesSubsequently she found this site, http://www.darkroomlab.com/treadwell/archive05.html which features the stills that Treadwell took. Darkroom Labs maintains it is simply presenting the work as Treadwell was a loyal customer. O.K.
For me, the comments of Sven Haakanson Jr. the curator of the local museum were most telling. "For 7,000 years we (aboriginals) have left the grizzlies alone and they have left us alone. Treadwell made them human habituated."
While not wanting to open a debate about dangers to photographers, it would be interesting to explore peoples feelings on the dangers to wildlife by having them become habituated to the increasing exposure to humans, particularly photographers.
In lecture with our local bear guide, somebody brought up the photography of grizzlies that some eco-tours offer. When it was expressed that grizzlies couldn't be all that dangerous if tourists were walking up and snapping their pics, he explained it is a very carefully controlled situation.
Guides go in with rubber bullets and establish a territory for the photographers to shoot from. It is apparently, such a ritual that if a tour doesn't go out by 9:30 in the morning, they don't go out at all. Guests are checked to make sure they have absolutely no food on them.
There is a valid argument to be made that photographic tours are far less harmful than the hunting expeditions they are quickly replacing and a source of replacement income to many remote communities.
However somebody such as Treadwell was in an area that was a remote nature preserve. It begs the question, with increasing pressure on tourism in remote areas, should preserves be precisely that, an area where humans, including photographers, can't venture leaving wildlife to its own devices.
Dave
About 2 years ago my wife and I were in Hallo Bay just a few miles from where Treadwell met his fate. It was both expensive and challenging to get to. The living conditions were comfortable wooden floor canvas covered tents. We were only allowed out of camp with an "official" guide. This was certainly not the destination of choice for the people accustomed to Hiltons.
The bear were NOT trained to keep their distance by any rubber bullets or any other means. The guides were expert at leading us to the bear viewing sites at a time that would not intimidate them.While we were on site the bear came toward the salmon river we were near. Thus they came to us.
Yes, the bear were used to seeing about 100 photographers a year. Yes they were acclimated to us enough to generally ignore our presence. However, the over riding theme of the guides was not to interfere with any bear behavior at any time. We were admonished constantly to let the bear be bear. If that meant leaving our location, so be it. If that meant staying really still while a bear walked by rather closely, so be it. We were not allowed ot approach a bear at any time. If a bear were doing some really cool thing a distance away, we could observe but not approach.
So, I guess I am against any form of forceably acclimenting any animal by artificial means such as rubber bullets, fences, electric wires, or any other such means. I am for allowing dedicated wildlife enthusiastis access under controled conditions that do not interfere with the animal's normal course of business. I believe these locations should remain remote and difficult to get to. I believe the living conditions should reflect the experience and privlege of being in the wilderness. By doing this the visitors will be limited to serious naturalists, photographers and others. The party goers and casual thrill seekers will be eliminated by virtue of the challange of the conditions. The animals will be acclimated to the presence of non threatening humans in the background. However they will come ot incorporate us into the general landscape as an interesting non-threatening species of no consequence.
Does this idea place barriers on some with good intentions but do not have the mental or physical capabilities to endure somewhat harsh conditions? Of course it does. Some day I may be one who cannot partake. However, it is just the way it is. There are just some things that not everyone can or should do.
In reality Treadwell practiced most, but not all of these things. The mistake he made was to think he could actually modify bear behavior into allowing him to sleep on their trails and in their grazing grounds. He made the mistake and eventually paid the ultimate price ( and his girlfriend's also) by not just observing bear, but intruding on their natural course of business. In this he violated the basic principle of letting bear be bear and taking joy out of observation and recording their life.
In short, he crossed the line and paid the price.
Sorry for the rambling. I hope I made some sense.
I believe the remote natural preserves is true wilderness. Our National Parks have vast natural preserves and only the hardy and determined humans find their way to those places. Access is controlled. Animals remain wild.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
A bear is like any other predator - they are opportunistic feeders and will take the "low hanging" fruit before the more difficult meal. These bears were hungry, Tim and his girlfriend were easy pickings. Fat, salmon fed coastal bears have no good reason to attack humans when there is plenty of alternative food and Alaskan fishermen routinely fish streams in immediate proximity with huge brownies and each minds his/her own business. But don't think for a moment that if food were scarce and these bears were really hungry that they wouldn't eat the person fishing the stream just as quickly as they ate Tim.
Zebra and other wildlife graze contentedly in the immediate proximity of lion prides which are well fed having just feasted on a fresh kill. But if the lions are hungry, the prey knows well enough to avoid them like the plague. Humans need to cultivate common sense when they venture into bear country. Never forget that you are potentially a meal for these critters. Tim made the foolish mistake of anthropomorphizing these creatures thinking that they were his "friends." Bears are not your friends or your enemy. Too much Gentle Ben on television has produced generations of humans who have lost touch with reality. You are just another critter a bit lower on the food chain to a bear. You might wander among them for years in safety, lulled into a false sense of security. Then one day the bear is hungry and you become the low hanging fruit. A word to the wise :-)
Lin
This is excellent advice. Just because you can do something does not mean you should.
A week ago last Wednesday we stopped for an afternoon at a Lodge in Cooper Landing in the central Kenai area. We had read in the Anchorage papers that the residents at Cooper where having trouble with brown bears. Poor salmon runs to date had left the bear population we were going to try to photograph hungry and aggressive. We were told not to hike along the river by the hostess in the restaurant. She was serious, we passed. These people have bears in their yards every day. Last Wednesday, a week after we were there, a bear grabbed a service worker in broad daylight on the same Lodge grounds and almost killed her before the bear was driven off.
We just returned from 3 days at Brooks Falls which had a nice run of Salmon last weekend and a load of bears. We in camp had multiple encounters with a small sow and her 3 cubs. I had a surprise from 25 feet with that bear when they popped up within sight of the dining hall on the min camp trail. I still find it unbelievable that so many (too many) people can go there and some do not get killed. When you turn right down that final path to the platform you could accidently meet a new bear, one that is hungry, an old bear that is cranky or get caught up in a bear chase. Some of those bears are starving and most are incredibly stressed from the forced aggregation. There were more than 30 fishing bears visible from the platform and many more on both sides of the river. Those bears all got there the same way we did. You are part of the food chain at that place.
Same bears at both places. Just a thought.
See my picture of Goldilocks nursing her 3 cubs in the Alaska section under the Brooks Survey replies/ thread.
Steve
In a nutshell when people first start using an area, the bears have two choices: Leave or get used to it. The latter case is called "habituation." All the agencies here in Alaska work desperately to control and limit habituation around communities, but it happens anyway. About all they can do is make sure that the habituation is not harmful to the bears or to people.
Part of living in bear country is getting acquainted with individual bears whose territory you "share." We form respectful relations with the bears around our house, as do all our neighbors. But every year new faces appear as old ones disappear. Each encounter with a new bear is very tentative. You just don't know what to expect of each other. I've attached a snapshot I took yesterday of one new neighbor. The first time my wife and I encountered him he ran like a scalded cat. This time he had obviously met other people, because he decided to come in for a closer look. (This was shot with a pocket camera and not much lens.) We backed off while talking to him and he eventually lost interest. He's well on his way toward habituation. That can be good or bad, as long as some "rules" are set up and we both respect them.
Here's the bigger question for me:
"Should there be places in bear country set aside strictly for the bears?" Investments in cameras and travel be damned, should they be off limits to photographers and everyone else?
Timmy's 2 bears got killed because they didn't want to be around people, yet he followed them into their chosen refuge anyway. Frankly I have a lot more empathy for the bears and the girlfriend than I do for Timmy. He got what he had coming, but cost three other lives in the process.
Well, one might suggest he got what we ALL have coming to us, one day or another. :)
From what I understand, (and I'm trying to remember this from the few years ago that it happened) the bear that actually killed him was new to the area .. Tim had probably spent more time there than the bear.
One of the things at Brooks that is interesting is they "close" the viewing platforms after, say, 10pm, because some bears come out then that clearly don't like to be around during the way when so many people are around - so it's good that the NPS respect that.
I think in a place like Katmai or Lake Clark, where bears congregate so heavily, having areas set aside as off-limits to people is probably fine - though I bet you'd find the bears, being bears, travel enough that they wander into surrounding areas with people reasonably frequently. Just as bears habituated to human presence currently wander into areas that can be hunted, and get shot. I think Timmy's actions are WAY less problematic than the system that allows hunting of bears that can be walked up to and shot from 25 yards away.
Cheers
Carl
Negatory, good buddy. Negatory.
It was his first overnight trip in there and was made against all advice from the pilot (a personal friend, and the one who discovered the remains when he returned for a welfare check) and others familiar with the area. He'd been there only once before on a short day trip and was run out by an aggressive bear. The area is adjacent to the popular Halo Bay viewing area, but a known retreat for bears seeking refuge from the bedlam on the tide flats. I've been there. It's very brushy with little more than bear tunnels through the overhead brush. There's one little grassy knoll that the bears appear to use for "king of the hill" with the most dominant bears claiming it. That's EXACTLY where Timmy chose to camp.
As for places like Katmai and Lake Clark with areas off limits to people, that's pretty standard anywhere people congregate to be seen by the bears. And it works.
Nuff sed. I obviously bridle at any representation of Timmy as a victim. As Sven said, people have been living around bears for thousands of years, some more successfullyl than others. Timmy was so far beyond the radical fringe he was over the horizon. Paid for his stupidity, too.
Thanks - I know the "Grizzly Maze" isn't a good place for a campsite. :) I thought he'd been there before is all.
I'm not sure what you mean by the last comment - what places in Katmai and Lake Clark are off limits to people, outside the Brooks viewing platforms after dark?
Thanks.
Cheers
Carl
I don't know much about bear habituation. I live in black bear, wolf and mountain lion country. I don't know squat about grizzlies or browns, except that I don't really want to share the same space with them. If a wolf comes at me I stand a pretty good chance of taking care of business. If a grizzly/brown wants to eat me and I am unarmed, I am dinner. Period.
I'm a wolf guy. I have a case history of 80 wolf/human encounters prepared in 2002 by the state of Alaska. In some, the wolves were aggressive. In some, they attacked. In almost all cases, the aggressive wolves were either ill or were habituated to people through feeding, and had lost their wariness. If a wolf is repeatedly fed by people, it begins to associate people with handouts and, approaching a person and expecting food, can become aggressive when no food is given. That appears to be the case regarding the man killed by wolves in Saskatchewan a few years ago. If my memory hasn't failed me, investigators found evidence the wolves were food/human habituated. And what happened? Dead person, dead wolves.
I know of at least one person within 15 miles of Ely who regularly feeds wolves on her property. She is asking for trouble for anyone those wolves approach, as well as the wolves themselves. I photographed a black wolf not far from Ely last fall, which I posted here on NPN. It was a female from the very pack that gets fed by this person. The wolf was trotting down the road and came into the ditch up up into the woods and trotted right toward me, knowing I was there the whole time and stopping about 40 feet away. I fired a burst of shots and then ducked to get a little lower for a better angle. Yeah, I know, not a good idea to get lower when a large predator is staring at you. When I did that, she put her head down and looked intently at me for about five seconds. That's called an assessment stare. She clearly was weighing whether I was food or had food. An unhabituated wolf almost certainly would never have approached me so closely in the first place, and would not have hung around as long as this one did.
While I was thankful for the opportunity to get the capture, I understood why it happened, and was not at all happy about that.
As for the idea of roping off tracts of wilderness and keeping all humans out of those tracts, it is attractive to some in theory, but it's a false attraction. It would take a vast area to remove all impacts of humankind. And, let's face it, as sentient beings on this planet, we are as much a part of nature as the nature we have removed ourselves from. Given that perspective, to forbid humans into certain tracts in an effort to protect environments from human influence is both egocentric and fatuous. While we are not the center of the universe, we are as much a part of the universe as lichens, leopards and lice.
David, thanks for starting this thread. I think enough time has passed so the Treadwell incident can be discussed without chest thumping and controversy. And Hank, thanks for introducing ground truth I hadn't heard before.
In contrast to Steve, I think in Alaska at least, there should be areas adjacent to all popular viewing areas that are closed entirely to humans, just to give the bears a break. I'd rather see that than see bears try to enforce a "closed" area of their own such as Timmy entered with sad consequences for the enforcers. Bears will stll come to the open areas while there is an adjacent "rest area" for bears that prefer to feed at night when the people aren't around, then withdraw with some assurance that they won't be hassled.
We've got just such a non-statutory closed area in the headwaters of a creek about a mile from our house. There are at least a couple of NASTY bears up there. While other bears not so bothered by people are seen downstream, the rough ones only come down into the lower watershed to feed at night, and you see their tracks. But anyone who goes way upstream is likely to have a nasty encounter. Locals know it, and in general the terrain is too tough for tourists. We avoid it, while the tourists don't want to work that hard when other more tolerant bears will venture downstream to them in daylight.
In my eyes, the stellar bear viewing program in the world is the one run by ADF&G at McNeil River. It provides a well-informed mix of controlled human activities while allowing bears to be bears. The recent opening of an adjacent region of state lands to hunting has really stirred up a hornets nest up here, fed by a TV news crew who went out there to cover the first hunts. You'll have to search the site to find the piece from last fall, but it's not pretty.
I certainly never made any suggestion Tim was a 'victim' - he lived his life the way he wanted to.
Thanks for the clarification - I see what you mean a bit better now. That makes sense to have places where the bears aren't constantly bombarded with clicking shutters, etc.
Cheers
Carl