Author Topic: Grizzly Man (Read 2060 times)

midnight Target · « **Reply #45 on:** September 06, 2006, 05:26:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
It's rather annoying how many people are commenting on both situations when they really know nothing about either.

Hey everybody! laser was there!!

Shuckins · « **Reply #46 on:** September 06, 2006, 05:32:09 PM »

Treadwell, being an idealistic zealot, raised on modern chuckleheaded environmentalism, ignored, but ultimately ran squarely into, the basic law of the wild...eat or be eaten.

It serves no good purpose to clothe the wild in some fairy dust notions of mystic nobility. The wild is the wild...period. You and I are just walking containers of protein.

I love the natural world...have spent a lot of time alone in it...and want to see it preserved in as pristine a condition as possible......but I have no illusions about it.

When one is abroad in the wild, all actions should err on the side of caution.

midnight Target · « **Reply #47 on:** September 06, 2006, 05:55:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
Ah... you're stretching to make absolutely no point.

Going into the woods: No problem

Going up to a grizzly: Problem

Snorkling: No problem

Snorkling over a stingray: problem

Driving: No problem

Driving on ice: problem

Both of these guys did very stupid things with dangerous animals. Despite yeager's assertion that there is a big difference, the point is missed. One was a likeable sort that made incredibly stupid things look routine. That is every bit as bad as a loon doing the same things. Nature wins again.

Of course you are basically right, but there are certainly degrees of risk. Snorkling near stingrays would be about a 2 while living with grizzlies would be about a 50... on a scale of 0 being grandma's garden and 50 being trying to retrieve food from a pitbull's mouth.

Yeager · « **Reply #48 on:** September 06, 2006, 06:10:51 PM »

yes, snorkling with rays is highly deadly. So deadly in fact that three people in the past 100 years have died snorkling in Australia as a result of being struck by rays.

There simply is no comparrison between these two men.

Mini D · « **Reply #49 on:** September 06, 2006, 06:43:58 PM »

How many people have been killed by grizzlies in the last 100 years?

They both showed a lack of respect for exactly what these animals were and how they'd react to them. It killed both of them. That is about as much comonality as you need.

You're only quibbling over degrees of sanity.

Neubob · « **Reply #50 on:** September 06, 2006, 06:45:32 PM »

I thought I was the one that was quibling--what gives?

Yeager · « **Reply #51 on:** September 06, 2006, 07:36:48 PM »

How many people have been killed by grizzlies in the last 100 years?
====
Wikipedia shows that in North America alone, between the year 2000 and 2006, 19 people were killed by brown/black bears. The sight doesnt seem to differentiate between Brown and Grizzly. So simple bear data will have to do in this example.

In Glacier National Park between 1967 and 1998, 10 people were killed by Grizzly bears.

If after reading this data you conclude that snorkling in ray country is equivalent or even comparable to camping in bear country then there just is no more meat on this bone to chew. No pun intended towards Tim Treadwell

Speaking of Tim, I found a fascinating article about the attack that killed he and his lady

http://www.yellowstone-bearman.com/Tim_Treadwell.html

Squire · « **Reply #52 on:** September 06, 2006, 07:42:11 PM »

Lesson #1 of the bush. Giving wild animals snookie-pookie names wont stop them from eating you.

I talked to bears like that once, bit they were stuffed, and I was six years old...

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #53 on:** September 06, 2006, 07:55:27 PM »

LOL Yeager. Irwin was just "snorkeling in ray country". Have you seen his videos? Find a dangerous animal, roll the camera, antagonize animal until it attacks.

Estes · « **Reply #54 on:** September 06, 2006, 07:56:59 PM »

"Gotta sneak up on 'em and ram your thumb right up their butthole!"

Mini D · « **Reply #55 on:** September 06, 2006, 09:28:11 PM »

Then 10 would be it yeager. Black/brown aren't grizzlies.

So... 10 deaths where people are greatly more prevelant (more people on land than the sea... yes?) vs 4.

Yeppers... real statistical difference there.

Why... singrays are only 1/3 as deadly as grizzly bears. That makes them FUN!

Venomous barbed tail. Say that to yourself really slow. "They hardly ever use it" isn't much of an excuse.

Yeager · « **Reply #56 on:** September 06, 2006, 10:12:57 PM »

Uhmmm.............. brown bears are grizzly bears

so, what your basically saying now is that a sting ray has the same lethality as a grizzly bear?

o.....k

Vudak · « **Reply #57 on:** September 06, 2006, 10:29:07 PM »

The major difference between Steve Irwin and Tim Treadwell was that Irwin was loved and adored by millions of people. Well wishers are leaving flowers upon flowers at his park. His family has been offered a State Funeral.

Timothy Treadwell was largely unheard of until he died. People only sat through the whole video to see if they showed anything "good." Or to do a nice case study of someone completely mad. And not crazy because of his infatuation with bears - just completely looney with or without them.

I don't think anyone is arguing that we shouldn't have been expecting Irwin's death, or that he wasn't taking risks. I do think some people, including myself, are a bit ruffled that someone would compare him to Timothy Treadwell. Anyone who has watched Grizzly Man, read that link a few posted, and also watched a fair amount of Croc Hunter episodes knows that's unjust.

I also think that many of us were figuring he'd get eaten by a crocodile or die from a snake bite. If you asked me a week ago how I thought he might die I sure as heck wouldn't have said he'd get pierced through the heart by a sting ray.

It's like a modern day story of Achilles' Heel.

~~Steve Irwin~~

Neubob · « **Reply #58 on:** September 06, 2006, 10:32:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
Then 10 would be it yeager. Black/brown aren't grizzlies.

So... 10 deaths where people are greatly more prevelant (more people on land than the sea... yes?) vs 4.

The chances of running into a Sting Ray by accident, taking into account the number of people in the ocean at given moment, the size of the habitat and the fact that there are no established boundaries delineating this habitat, are most likely greater than the chances of running into a bear, whose area is generally smaller, more localized and more predictable.

Furthermore, people are usually more aware of their chances of meeting a bear, as there are signs posted, as well as the presence of dense forest. The fact that there are more people on land is not relevant. They have to be in specific regions of the land, and since most Westerners spend most of their time in Urban/Suburban areas, the numbers are actually far lower, making the incidence of deadly bear attacks that much more significant.

Sting Rays, I'm thinking, are more likely to catch somebody by surprise--and I mean real surprise, as the person will have had no idea as to the risk of running into one. You also cannot discount the fact that many, perhaps most close encounters with Sting Rays go unnoticed. They will remain hiddenin the darkness, making no noise, and producing no outward signs to denote their presence. Not so for bears, who stomp around, rustling leaves and branches before they finally emerge, big as life, to scare the bejeezus out of you. Rays, like most fish, are just that much more discreet.

This very summer I almost brushed up against a passing Manta Ray while swimming just a few yards off shore at a private beach in Southern Delaware. Scared the hell out of me... No matter, I named him fluffy and proceeded to visit him every day with a video camera in hand.

Horn · « **Reply #59 on:** September 06, 2006, 10:52:24 PM »

4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.