What a sad commentary. Makes me think that "too many of us" is the real problem. Yeah, I know, touchy subject...
But hey, there's a happy ending;
"Bruno was to be dissected by veterinarians in Munich later Monday, and then prepared to be put on display in Munich's Museum of Man and Nature, Bernhard said."
Maybe they can issue the bears passports and diplomatic immunity too.
Guy
Posted by Basil Greber on June 27, 2006 at 4:39 PM
It's not the best solution, and certainly not a nice one. But let me explain what led to this disaster. I live in Switzerland, pretty close to the areas in question, and the bear was on the news daily, so I think I might add some info.
Anyway, this bear is the son of a mother-bear that was known to be "not normal", due to the fact that she had lost her fear from man. This "loss of fear" was transmitted to her children, the now-dead Bruno and another bear that was sighted in Switzerland a while ago (called Lumpaz, I think, possibly also dead, one does not know). The fact that these bears did no longer avoid humans (which is absolutely unnatural, european brown bears are shy creatures) led to concern that there might be fatal encounters, leading to dead people, some time soon, because "Bruno" walked through towns and broke into buildings quite regularly.
I'm not sure how exactly the mother got used to humans. However, her children inherited this behaviour, and what made it even worse is that she was chased away from her prey (sheep etc. killed near human shelters/towns) after having returned to it to eat *again* serveral times. However, this did not have the effect that she learned to avoid humans, but that she stopped returning to prey - and again, this was transmitted to the children. So it was very difficult to catch Bruno (which was tried for several weeks) because he did not return to his prey...
Anyway, I don't want to condemn the actions taken, and I don't want to support them, just give you some info, maybe a bit more than MSN...
The unfortunate chain of events almost certainly started with some idiot who fed the bear and thus habituated it. Without legislation and associated penalties for such irresponsible behavior, this is practically guaranteed to happen again. Is anything being done in that area?
I first read this story on Reuters, and agree with the German's decision. Given the animals behavior, I am somewhat critical of them waiting too long. I'm all for reintroducing the big mammals/predators where there is adequate space. I am also for a quick bullet to the head for those with behaviors like that bear.
I wonder how many people tonight will express outrage at killing the poor bear while eating their animal flesh dinner ?
I wonder how many people tonight will express outrage at killing the poor bear while eating their animal flesh dinner ?
Vegan here.
Guy
Posted by Basil Greber on June 27, 2006 at 5:06 PM
I agree with you on this, Guy. There are countries here in Europe where people know bears (and other raptors like wolves) only from the zoo, where you can feed them and they look cute and I don't know what else. They don't realize what kind of animal this is. Irresponsible behaviour (such as the "bear tourism" that started in Switzerland when Lumpaz whas sighted - people were following the bear or got out of their cars when the bear was close to the road) is the result of this... I don't know if anything is being done in that regard, but I'll keep my eyes & ears open.
What I found interesting is that the one who gave permission to shoot the bear received death threats! What logic....it's wrong to shoot the bear, but OK to shoot the human? Crazy people all around. I'm not commenting specifically on this bear, but I believe we should do everything we can, as Michael said, to share the planet with our other inhabitants. I love animals, but when they pose a threat to humans I have no objections to killing the animal.
John, we all draw the line somwehere. I avoid leather with very few exceptions but yes, there are exceptions. I think in terms of minimizing impact rather than eliminating impact (which is pretty much impossible when you think about it).
Alice, I'm not condoning it one bit but the argument these people are making is not necessarily the opposing of killing in general, but rather the killing of the innocent (bear in this case). I imagine that to them the people who ordered the bear killed are not innocent (I personally disagree, but just presenting the argument).
As for protecting human life at all cost - I have to disagree with that as well. A lot of people pose much greater threat to humanity at large than most animals. I would place the life of a random animal much higher than that of a serial killer or child molester or terrorist, for example. Humanity doesn't always trump all else.
Yes Guy, I agree that people (unfortunately) pose a much greater threat to their own race than animals do. People in general just don't seem to care about the human race any more...just their own selfish desires. But that discussion will take us way off into another realm! The arguments you refer to that these people are using seem very flawed...was the bear innocent? Just because it's a bear without the ability to reason? I don't see how they can consider an animal innocent if it poses a threat to nearby children, for example. Again, I'm not arguing this particular case since I don't know enough about the details. I just wish people would be reasonable. Things like this should be decided on a case by case basis logically. For instance, a bear recently killed a child in Tennessee, I think it was. Seriously wounded the mother and sister. Of course, no one could forsee that attack, and I know they are rare, but if the bear had presented itself in an area where it should not have been, posing a threat to people, would it have been wrong to kill it? The child would still be alive.
Unfortunately nature offers a lot of examples we would consider "cruel". A lot of animals consider the young easy prey (thing of gulls stealing nestlings, cheetas preying on young wildebeest, fish eating the offspring of other fish or even their own, and lest we forget - humans feasting on eggs or veal, etc.)
To a bear the killing of a young human is not a result of malice or an act of ego. To a trophy hunter it is - big moral difference. Sure, we have the right to defend ourselves and I would not fault the killing of another animal which poses a threat, but let's not take ourselves out of the equasion either - humans take the lives of other species' offspring all the time and in copious quantities.
I'm going way out on a limb with the following statement. I do not offer it as a "suggested course of action" but rather as a general observation;
If there were about 80% less homo sapiens on planet Earth, most of today's most pressing problems (pollution, energy concerns, habitat destruction, etc.) would not exist. And in all probability, this bear would have been free to wander where ever it damned well pleased.
I also believe that natural events/processes will eventually take care of this problem.
I know lots of people feel those things are cruel, but they are simply animals doing what they naturally do. I agree the bear's killing a young human would not be an act of malice or ego on its part. It would be simply doing what it does... Humans certainly take the lives of many other species in copious quantities...for food, trophies, whatever. They take their own offsprings lives also (but I guess I better not go down that road either!!) I guess the bottom line is we humans are a messed up bunch.
Jim you're right too! It's going to be taken care of at some point I'm sure.
John - a visit to a slaughterhouse will quickly and vividly dispell your assertions about consciousness of death. Animals (as in non-human animals) can sense death even when it's not obvious. Pigs and cows exhibit panic attacks (losing their bowels, buckling their knees, losing consciousness, screaming in terror etc.) long before being fed to the machine or even seeing it.
Sadly I also don't share your optimism. We are grossly out of balance with our environment and I personally believe we have already gone past the point of no return.
If Bruno ran things he would harvest what he needs to eat and leave the rest alone. Unlike ours, his appetiate is satiable. He will also be content within his territory and not feel compelled to conquer the Earth and subjugate all others who do not believe as he does. He may go to war to defend his family or welfare but never because a politician or priest told him so. He would not seek to amass fortunes he would never be able to eat or use within his lifetime and will not begrudge others their share as long as his needs are met. He will not deny others the right to migrate to greener pastures because of arbitrary lines on an imaginary map, and he probably will not poison the water, air, and land he lives off.
Do yourself a favor (anyone, that is) and read a book called "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn. You may not agree with all it has to say but it's guaranteed to make you think.
Well, I think this is terrible. We have a bear family in our neighborhood. They are rarely seen. They come and eat the wild berries in the fields and occasionally destroy our bird feeders. Our solution is to bring our feeders in at night and to be careful in the field. Most, but sadly not all, of us enjoy the fact that we live so close to such wonderful animals.
To put it another way - Yes, we have wild bears and other critters but no drive by shootings. We would much rather have the bear
Posted by Basil Greber on June 28, 2006 at 1:36 AM
Everybody discussing on human behaviour and impact on nature - I suggest you read Garret Hardin, "Tragedy of the Commons", published in Science some times in the 60ies or 70ies (I'm sure there's an online version somewhere). I guess you'll like it. I did, it's thought provoking & made me realize some things.
Basil
BTW: Forgot to mention - Bruno's mother was brought to Italy during a re-introduction project (not sure if this is the right word) from Eastern Europe (Romania, I think, but not sure). I guess this is where she got used to humans, probably due to some "process error".
Well, as far as I can tell, both of Bruno's parents came from Slovenia during reintroduction program. Can I ask you a question, Basil? Why do you think it's more probable for her to get use to humans in Eastern than in Western Europe? Yes it probably is, because there are no (or at least not all that much) bears in Western Europe anyway.
OK since I'm in already, I will vent myself a bit: in Slovenia bears became top political theme every four years (anybody want to know what's the gap between elections? I can tell you, I really can ). In Slovenia we suppose to have something like 300-350 bears. Of which 15-20 are killed each year in railway and road accidents and 25-30 are killed by state authorised hunters as part of "population control". They inhabit south western part of the county. This part is more or less completely covered with forest, and most of the human population lives in a few larger towns (10.000-30.000 souls). I would not like to go even deeper into politics, but let me just say that this part of Slovenia is quite barren and was therefore uninhabited till something like 14th century. And was emptied again after Second World War. Its serried forests present ideal habitat for large carnivorous animals. It was all "settled and under control" till independacy and exchange of systems in Slovenia in 1991. After Slovenia's independency authorities don't know what to do with this part of Slovenia. Ministry of agriculture think that it's ideal for sheep farming, and State actually stimulate farmers to breed sheep, while Ministry of Environment support large carnivores . And we know that sheep and bears (not to mention lynxes and wolfs) don't mix well. And to vent off issue with local farmers, who always think that there are too many bears, ministry of Environment agreed with Italy and France to help them reintroduce brown bear to Alps and Pyrenees. I don't know what the criteria for selecting a bear that will be ejected is, but my guess is, that it is posible to pick up a "problematic" individual. As far as I know all bears introduced into France were already killed by local sheep farmers (interesting), while Italian bears are doing better. Some were killed by avalanches, but it looks like they’ll settle there.
Steam back to normal pressure .
Marko
Posted by Basil Greber on June 28, 2006 at 12:44 PM
You got me completely wrong there, Marko. I was guessing that she had contact with man because she had to be captured and subsequently again set free after being moved to her "destination" by humans during the programme. Is this assumption wrong? I'm not at all blaming eastern european people for anything!
Jim wrote: "If there were about 80% less homo sapiens on planet Earth, most of today's most pressing problems (pollution, energy concerns, habitat destruction, etc.) would not exist. And in all probability, this bear would have been free to wander where ever it damned well pleased."
Without disputing your main point, which I agree with, I don't think your final statement above is correct. Earth had 20% of its current population sometime in the 1800's. I don't think that a bear in Germany in the 1800s would have much more freedom to wander than it does now! Some more of course, but not enough to "wander where ever it damned well pleased."
Taking things back to Bruno again, I wonder why there seem to have been only two choices to the Germans. One was to capture it and release it elsewhere, and the other to kill it.
Why did the option of negative conditioning never come up? There are several methods used in Canada and also in the parts of the US where bears are still to be found that might have been interesting. You don't have to really capture the bear, but just let it know that it is not welcome near human settlements. This is often done by using Karelian bear dogs (a specially trained breed of dog, originally from Scandinavia used to hunt large game, but in this case only used to scare the bears away) and shooting the bear with rubber bullets and simply making lots of noise.
This method can be used without approaching a bear even nearly as close as you'd have to do when capturing it. It is likely that it will have to be repeated a number of times until the bear really understands that "humans = noise and pain" instead of "humans = food". In cases where the bear is already too used to people, it may take many of these sessions, and it may even not work anymore. In Bruno's case, if his mother really transfered her fearlesness of humans to her offspring, that would have made it more difficult to achieve the desired effect. However, if you don't try, you'll never know. If it would have been started right after the first time Bruno made himself guilty of killing livestock, there would have been a good chance of success however.
It has become obvious from experience in North America that capture and release just doesn't really work anyway. In many cases the bears simply return to the area where they were captured, even if they have been brought to a remote area hundreds of kilometers away. That kind of space is simply not available in Western Europe. Besides, that kind of treatment is not aimed at making the bear less attracted to humans and the food they always have around them.
Does anyone know if negative conditioning has been tried or even considered for Bruno?
Well, I found the answer to my own question after some searching.
Bruno has been negatively conditioned while he was in Austria. This country has had a bear management plan since 1997. When bears get too close to humans there, rubber bullets are indeed used. It is said that Bruno reacted to this by never staying in the same place for long, but still very often choosing to be near humans and their food. This may be an argument for the case that Bruno was already so used to people that negative conditioning just would not work for him anymore.
Eventually, the bear walked into Germany, where there is no such thing as a bear management plan. He no longer encountered negative conditioning and was quite able to find food near humans, having become wary enough (possibly because of the thought of Austrian rubber bullets) to avoid the people trying to capture him. It is difficult to say what the effect of further negative conditioning in Germany would have had. Even in Canada, some bears just don't react to it in the desired way and have to be killed because they actively seek out food near humans, or even humans themselves.
For now, it is important that Germany and indeed the whole of Western Europe where bears already occur, or may occur in the near future, work on a management plan where bears get a serious chance.
Posted by Basil Greber on June 29, 2006 at 9:26 AM
Arthur, that's what I was trying to say, thanks for translating it into english! The mother and her young were chased away from their prey with rubber bullets a couple of times, but as I understood it not right when they killed it, but when they came back to have another lunch. Therefore, they didn't equate humans to pain and noise, but to easy found food, and they linked coming *back* to food with noise and pain... not quite the desired effect...
Basil, that is very interesting. Thank you for sharing that! It shows how intelligent these animals really are and how one can have the best intentions with negative conditioning, while completely missing the intended result.
On a related note...I was in Alaska last week for work, and witnessed "combat fishing" at it's best. Coho salmon were running, and it was just a madhouse at the Russian River.
Given the vastness of Alaska, it was unbelievable to see such a concentration of humanity fishing at one place on the Russian River. People had to wait in line just to get into a parking lot, wait in line to get to take a ferry that was set up to take people across the river, and even wait in line on the river bank until enough space opened up in the water!!
Worst, people were SUPPOSED to take their fish home and clean them, or at a minimum, cut them into small chunks before tossing any remains in the river. Instead, I saw just as many dead floating fish carcasses "caught" by fishermen (snagging their lines) than live fish.
That of course attracted the bears. On the day I was there, within 100 yards of this spot on the river, 2 fisherman came across a brown bear and cubs. The bear supposedly charged. The bear is now dead. The same day, same area, a black bear was shot and killed.
Pretty sad thing to see...all these bozos stacked up to get their 3-fish limit, elbow to elbow in the river. The worst part...a good many of them were carrying firearms!! Not only did they deem it worth it to endure the mass of humanity to get these 3-fish, they also thought it was worth a bear's life.
Can't say as I've ever fished with a 12-gage shotgun strapped to my back, like some of these bozos. Alaska was a blast, and certainly a wild and wonderful place in many areas, but seeing this event certainly altered my views on Alaska and its people.
Terry, thanks for sharing that. It's enough to make your blood boil... . I knew Alaskan rivers were popular with fishermen, but this is simply ridiculous. We're a plague!
Posted by Kent Staubus on July 1, 2006 at 12:50 PM
I read the original article and have some thoughts. First, it sounds to me like the real problem is there really isn't the large unpopulated area in Bavaria needed to support the bear. It is bound to continually bump into people there. This isn't a bear problem, it's a habitat problem. Using the human avoidance conditioning methods that are successful in North America likely wouldn't work in that part of Europe because there is no unpopulated place for the critter to retreat to. Second, I have to wonder if they could shoot it from 150 meters with a rifle, why couldn't they shoot it with a dart? I'm not sure what the range for a dart gun is--never owned one. I'm not sure the bear was as big a danger as the officials made it out to be. It was raiding bee hives--sounds like they shot Winnie the Pooh, LOL!
As for wild predators only killing what they will eat, that is fiction. I personally have seen coyotes and bobcats kill far more than what they would eat, and leave the rest. This is sort of thing has been documented over and over through the years.
I once worked in a meat processing plant, as a hand therapist (an occupational therapy specialty.) Since I worked with injured employees at their work station, I pretty much saw every part of two different operations. One was beef, the other pork. I never saw any sign of fear at the cattle plant, and keep in mind I grew up with cattle and know how to "read" them pretty well. Pigs are far smarter than cattle and in the older plants they sometimes do show signs of being skittish. It's thought they can smell the blood scent from inside and put two and two together. Modern hog processing plants have what's called "positive ventilation," meaning air from inside does not blow outside. The loading ramps have also been redesigned to keep the pigs/hogs calm. There has been quite a bit of behavioral science applied to the whole matter. Again, I have seen all this first hand and observed it over a period of time. All in all, that might have been the second most macabre job I ever had though. The only job that beat it was when I worked as a therapy intern in a state hospital for the criminally insane.
While part of me here is saying, "It's only one bear, keep a perspective here," another part does wonder why Europe can't have at least a few intact habitats big enough for bears, elk, and so on. It makes me proud of my country, for one thing.
While part of me here is saying, "It's only one bear, keep a perspective here," another part does wonder why Europe can't have at least a few intact habitats big enough for bears, elk, and so on. It makes me proud of my country, for one thing.
Well Kent, we people have been so thorough in taming the natural values around us here in Europe that indeed hardly any habitat large enough for animals like bears remains. It is a good thing that that kind of space still exists in the US and Canada. However, we Europeans have simply had more time to destroy what we had, and I'm afraid that you guys (hmmm, in a way many of you guys are Europeans too, right?) have been doing a good job of catching up so far. After all, according to some reports, grizlly bears have lost up to 98% of their original habitat.
There simply doesn't remain much hope for bears and other large predators this way. The fact that a bear found its way into Germany could be seen as a sign of recovery of the population, but the fate of Bruno also shows that to give bears a chance in busy Western Europe, a lot will have to change. Will it be possible at all? Maybe not. You mentioned the fact that a bear in Bavaria would have a very hard time staying away from people, which could be a huge problem. It is quite unlikely that people will create the space needed to maintain a healthy bear population if that means that they will have to move out of certain areas. Unfortunately, that might just be the only way. I do not know that area, so cannot say much about it, but I intend to learn quite a bit more about this issue soon.
It's interesting. Yes, I travelled through Western Europe a bit, and yes, beside fields, villages and towns there isn't much left. So, while I'm proud that Slovenia is still covered more than 50% with forest, and that we still have healthy population of big carnivores (although this is partly due to dense forests of neighbouring south Hungary and north-western Croatia) I do wonder where this capitalistic and homocentric thinking will lead us. For example: our government is advocating "biomass as being the most ecological type of fuel"!!!!! Give me a break! If Slovenia's capital of Ljubljana would exchange its heating plans fuel from oil to biomass, there will not be any forest left in few years time. And one is calling this ecological?? This way of thinking is already raising pressure on forests around here.
IMO the problem is in thinking that everything in existence is just for the benefit of humans, and therefore we can do whatever we wish with this planet. A plague is the right name for such thinking.
Well,
I don't know how it starts. May be animals (non-humans ) feel no-longer safe within their boundaries, get nothing to eat or fed by people (like bears in alaska or canada). At some point they get used to it and if it stops then they go by their instincts.
It is common in some villages in India to spot a tiger sometimes. All of a sudden it starts attacking small animals, and eventually kids and grownups. and then someday get killed. The same thing happened here in Europe , I guess. As the old saying from a hindu-myth goes, you got rid of the creator but not the problem.
Seems the animals never win. At some point we must get the population in check, over-population is destroying what we all love, Mother Earth! Ron
Posted by Leann Greene on July 27, 2006 at 5:41 AM
To me it seems like the situation was probably mishandeled. As Alice suggests we don't know all the details as we get the info through reports and are not in that area ourselves. If it was because of a cycle of habituating the bear family(sow to cubs) then it should be used as a lesson against that kind of behavior on the part of people.
Posted by Randy Beacham on January 26, 2007 at 6:05 AM
I was at a meeting here at home some time ago discussing the local grizzly bear population and after discussing numerous problems the forest service biologist said very succintly, in biologist terms, "the real problem here is that we humans have over exceeded our carrying capacity on the planet." There was immediate silence after this comment, the meeting was suddenly over and we all walked out, I think with the same pessimtic thoughts.
As Arthur mentioned bears have not had a good track record with transplanting. They are amazingly adaptive animals as far as the types of food and habitat they can live in, yet they, like humans, need much care when growing up to learn how to survive. Each population of bears learn different behaviours in order to survive in their specific environments. What this means is that when transplanted they are totally out of place, would be kind of like if I up and moved to New York So what happens is that if they're not comfortable where they've been placed, which is probably most of the time, they will usually take off, roaming around trying to find an area in which to establish its home territory. So even if they're not problem bears before being transferred they will soon have problems.
Where I live there's a small population of grizzlies left that biologists have termed the Cabinet-Yaak population. Problem is that the southern portion of the range, in the Cabinet Mountains, has only 10-15 bears left and in the past twenty years there's been no documentation of the bears there migrating north into the Yaak portion. On both the north and south end of their range are large river systems, highways and railways, so the population has become totally isolated. Right now there's three claims for large silver mines going through some of the best and only habitat left. The US Fish and Wildlife have given their okay for the first mining proposal and at the same time have begun transplanting bears taken from just outside Glacier Naitonal Park. How ethical is it to take healthy bears from a good ecosystem and place them in an area where what little habitat is left is being developed? Randy
Randy, the news about the silver mines is so extremely frustrating.. It is yet another bite humans take out of the living range of other creatures. Every time it's just a little bite, and then one more, and just one more, because after all, there are many precedents, so what reason could be good enough to prevent yet another small bite. Eventually, not too long from now, the last small bite will also be gone if we keep going this way. With 98% of 'original' grizzly habitat already lost to the bears in the US, that seems to be a very real threat!
Discussion
42 repliesWhat a sad commentary. Makes me think that "too many of us" is the real problem. Yeah, I know, touchy subject...
But hey, there's a happy ending;
"Bruno was to be dissected by veterinarians in Munich later Monday, and then prepared to be put on display in Munich's Museum of Man and Nature, Bernhard said."
What a lucky bear!
Guy
Shot in zoo:
http://jaccorens.com/bruno_not_so_scary_at_all-.jpg
Guy
Anyway, this bear is the son of a mother-bear that was known to be "not normal", due to the fact that she had lost her fear from man. This "loss of fear" was transmitted to her children, the now-dead Bruno and another bear that was sighted in Switzerland a while ago (called Lumpaz, I think, possibly also dead, one does not know). The fact that these bears did no longer avoid humans (which is absolutely unnatural, european brown bears are shy creatures) led to concern that there might be fatal encounters, leading to dead people, some time soon, because "Bruno" walked through towns and broke into buildings quite regularly.
I'm not sure how exactly the mother got used to humans. However, her children inherited this behaviour, and what made it even worse is that she was chased away from her prey (sheep etc. killed near human shelters/towns) after having returned to it to eat *again* serveral times. However, this did not have the effect that she learned to avoid humans, but that she stopped returning to prey - and again, this was transmitted to the children. So it was very difficult to catch Bruno (which was tried for several weeks) because he did not return to his prey...
Anyway, I don't want to condemn the actions taken, and I don't want to support them, just give you some info, maybe a bit more than MSN...
Basil
Guy
I wonder how many people tonight will express outrage at killing the poor bear while eating their animal flesh dinner ?
Vegan here.
Guy
Basil
Humans are doomed to failure unless we can learn to peacefully share the planet with its other inhabitants.
Guy
As for protecting human life at all cost - I have to disagree with that as well. A lot of people pose much greater threat to humanity at large than most animals. I would place the life of a random animal much higher than that of a serial killer or child molester or terrorist, for example. Humanity doesn't always trump all else.
Guy
Unfortunately nature offers a lot of examples we would consider "cruel". A lot of animals consider the young easy prey (thing of gulls stealing nestlings, cheetas preying on young wildebeest, fish eating the offspring of other fish or even their own, and lest we forget - humans feasting on eggs or veal, etc.)
To a bear the killing of a young human is not a result of malice or an act of ego. To a trophy hunter it is - big moral difference. Sure, we have the right to defend ourselves and I would not fault the killing of another animal which poses a threat, but let's not take ourselves out of the equasion either - humans take the lives of other species' offspring all the time and in copious quantities.
Guy
If there were about 80% less homo sapiens on planet Earth, most of today's most pressing problems (pollution, energy concerns, habitat destruction, etc.) would not exist. And in all probability, this bear would have been free to wander where ever it damned well pleased.
I also believe that natural events/processes will eventually take care of this problem.
Jim you're right too! It's going to be taken care of at some point I'm sure.
Sadly I also don't share your optimism. We are grossly out of balance with our environment and I personally believe we have already gone past the point of no return.
If Bruno ran things he would harvest what he needs to eat and leave the rest alone. Unlike ours, his appetiate is satiable. He will also be content within his territory and not feel compelled to conquer the Earth and subjugate all others who do not believe as he does. He may go to war to defend his family or welfare but never because a politician or priest told him so. He would not seek to amass fortunes he would never be able to eat or use within his lifetime and will not begrudge others their share as long as his needs are met. He will not deny others the right to migrate to greener pastures because of arbitrary lines on an imaginary map, and he probably will not poison the water, air, and land he lives off.
Do yourself a favor (anyone, that is) and read a book called "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn. You may not agree with all it has to say but it's guaranteed to make you think.
Guy
To put it another way - Yes, we have wild bears and other critters but no drive by shootings. We would much rather have the bear
Basil
BTW: Forgot to mention - Bruno's mother was brought to Italy during a re-introduction project (not sure if this is the right word) from Eastern Europe (Romania, I think, but not sure). I guess this is where she got used to humans, probably due to some "process error".
OK since I'm in already, I will vent myself a bit: in Slovenia bears became top political theme every four years (anybody want to know what's the gap between elections? I can tell you, I really can
Steam back to normal pressure
Marko
Basil
Without disputing your main point, which I agree with, I don't think your final statement above is correct. Earth had 20% of its current population sometime in the 1800's. I don't think that a bear in Germany in the 1800s would have much more freedom to wander than it does now! Some more of course, but not enough to "wander where ever it damned well pleased."
-Paul
Why did the option of negative conditioning never come up? There are several methods used in Canada and also in the parts of the US where bears are still to be found that might have been interesting. You don't have to really capture the bear, but just let it know that it is not welcome near human settlements. This is often done by using Karelian bear dogs (a specially trained breed of dog, originally from Scandinavia used to hunt large game, but in this case only used to scare the bears away) and shooting the bear with rubber bullets and simply making lots of noise.
This method can be used without approaching a bear even nearly as close as you'd have to do when capturing it. It is likely that it will have to be repeated a number of times until the bear really understands that "humans = noise and pain" instead of "humans = food". In cases where the bear is already too used to people, it may take many of these sessions, and it may even not work anymore. In Bruno's case, if his mother really transfered her fearlesness of humans to her offspring, that would have made it more difficult to achieve the desired effect. However, if you don't try, you'll never know. If it would have been started right after the first time Bruno made himself guilty of killing livestock, there would have been a good chance of success however.
It has become obvious from experience in North America that capture and release just doesn't really work anyway. In many cases the bears simply return to the area where they were captured, even if they have been brought to a remote area hundreds of kilometers away. That kind of space is simply not available in Western Europe. Besides, that kind of treatment is not aimed at making the bear less attracted to humans and the food they always have around them.
Does anyone know if negative conditioning has been tried or even considered for Bruno?
Bruno has been negatively conditioned while he was in Austria. This country has had a bear management plan since 1997. When bears get too close to humans there, rubber bullets are indeed used. It is said that Bruno reacted to this by never staying in the same place for long, but still very often choosing to be near humans and their food. This may be an argument for the case that Bruno was already so used to people that negative conditioning just would not work for him anymore.
Eventually, the bear walked into Germany, where there is no such thing as a bear management plan. He no longer encountered negative conditioning and was quite able to find food near humans, having become wary enough (possibly because of the thought of Austrian rubber bullets) to avoid the people trying to capture him. It is difficult to say what the effect of further negative conditioning in Germany would have had. Even in Canada, some bears just don't react to it in the desired way and have to be killed because they actively seek out food near humans, or even humans themselves.
For now, it is important that Germany and indeed the whole of Western Europe where bears already occur, or may occur in the near future, work on a management plan where bears get a serious chance.
Basil
Cheers,
Arthur
Given the vastness of Alaska, it was unbelievable to see such a concentration of humanity fishing at one place on the Russian River. People had to wait in line just to get into a parking lot, wait in line to get to take a ferry that was set up to take people across the river, and even wait in line on the river bank until enough space opened up in the water!!
Worst, people were SUPPOSED to take their fish home and clean them, or at a minimum, cut them into small chunks before tossing any remains in the river. Instead, I saw just as many dead floating fish carcasses "caught" by fishermen (snagging their lines) than live fish.
That of course attracted the bears. On the day I was there, within 100 yards of this spot on the river, 2 fisherman came across a brown bear and cubs. The bear supposedly charged. The bear is now dead. The same day, same area, a black bear was shot and killed.
Pretty sad thing to see...all these bozos stacked up to get their 3-fish limit, elbow to elbow in the river. The worst part...a good many of them were carrying firearms!! Not only did they deem it worth it to endure the mass of humanity to get these 3-fish, they also thought it was worth a bear's life.
Can't say as I've ever fished with a 12-gage shotgun strapped to my back, like some of these bozos. Alaska was a blast, and certainly a wild and wonderful place in many areas, but seeing this event certainly altered my views on Alaska and its people.
As for wild predators only killing what they will eat, that is fiction. I personally have seen coyotes and bobcats kill far more than what they would eat, and leave the rest. This is sort of thing has been documented over and over through the years.
I once worked in a meat processing plant, as a hand therapist (an occupational therapy specialty.) Since I worked with injured employees at their work station, I pretty much saw every part of two different operations. One was beef, the other pork. I never saw any sign of fear at the cattle plant, and keep in mind I grew up with cattle and know how to "read" them pretty well. Pigs are far smarter than cattle and in the older plants they sometimes do show signs of being skittish. It's thought they can smell the blood scent from inside and put two and two together. Modern hog processing plants have what's called "positive ventilation," meaning air from inside does not blow outside. The loading ramps have also been redesigned to keep the pigs/hogs calm. There has been quite a bit of behavioral science applied to the whole matter. Again, I have seen all this first hand and observed it over a period of time. All in all, that might have been the second most macabre job I ever had though. The only job that beat it was when I worked as a therapy intern in a state hospital for the criminally insane.
While part of me here is saying, "It's only one bear, keep a perspective here," another part does wonder why Europe can't have at least a few intact habitats big enough for bears, elk, and so on. It makes me proud of my country, for one thing.
Kent in SD
Well Kent, we people have been so thorough in taming the natural values around us here in Europe that indeed hardly any habitat large enough for animals like bears remains. It is a good thing that that kind of space still exists in the US and Canada. However, we Europeans have simply had more time to destroy what we had, and I'm afraid that you guys (hmmm, in a way many of you guys are Europeans too, right?) have been doing a good job of catching up so far. After all, according to some reports, grizlly bears have lost up to 98% of their original habitat.
There simply doesn't remain much hope for bears and other large predators this way. The fact that a bear found its way into Germany could be seen as a sign of recovery of the population, but the fate of Bruno also shows that to give bears a chance in busy Western Europe, a lot will have to change. Will it be possible at all? Maybe not. You mentioned the fact that a bear in Bavaria would have a very hard time staying away from people, which could be a huge problem. It is quite unlikely that people will create the space needed to maintain a healthy bear population if that means that they will have to move out of certain areas. Unfortunately, that might just be the only way. I do not know that area, so cannot say much about it, but I intend to learn quite a bit more about this issue soon.
IMO the problem is in thinking that everything in existence is just for the benefit of humans, and therefore we can do whatever we wish with this planet. A plague is the right name for such thinking.
Marko
I don't know how it starts. May be animals (non-humans
It is common in some villages in India to spot a tiger sometimes. All of a sudden it starts attacking small animals, and eventually kids and grownups. and then someday get killed. The same thing happened here in Europe , I guess. As the old saying from a hindu-myth goes, you got rid of the creator but not the problem.
As Arthur mentioned bears have not had a good track record with transplanting. They are amazingly adaptive animals as far as the types of food and habitat they can live in, yet they, like humans, need much care when growing up to learn how to survive. Each population of bears learn different behaviours in order to survive in their specific environments. What this means is that when transplanted they are totally out of place, would be kind of like if I up and moved to New York
Where I live there's a small population of grizzlies left that biologists have termed the Cabinet-Yaak population. Problem is that the southern portion of the range, in the Cabinet Mountains, has only 10-15 bears left and in the past twenty years there's been no documentation of the bears there migrating north into the Yaak portion. On both the north and south end of their range are large river systems, highways and railways, so the population has become totally isolated. Right now there's three claims for large silver mines going through some of the best and only habitat left. The US Fish and Wildlife have given their okay for the first mining proposal and at the same time have begun transplanting bears taken from just outside Glacier Naitonal Park. How ethical is it to take healthy bears from a good ecosystem and place them in an area where what little habitat is left is being developed? Randy