> Wes: There’s audio recording of him dying. My advisor listened to it. I’ve never listened to it, but it’s 15 minutes of him being dismantled by a bear. You can hear his arm being separated from his body in it. It’s the worst possible way to go.
God, I remember watching the scene in "Grizzly Man" in which Werner Herzog listens to this exact audio recording. Even via proxy, it's very hard to stomach.
> It's the most terrifying thing I've ever heard in my life. Being shocked like that, I told her, "You should never listen to it, and you should rather destroy [the tape]. It should not be sitting on your shelf in your living room all the time."
Dont worry, not a violent attack. This is a black bear digging into a girl's kayak as she yells at it. Notice how the bear ignores her pleadings. I have personally shouted at and scared away bears (bc, black bears). They do respond. But once they decide you are not a threat, or heaven help you food, they will ignore any noise you make. This girl's high-pitched squeals fall on deaf ears. The fuzzy dog-like intelligent animal becomes a monster.
Fyi, the girl's progressively higher pitch may do well to attract help from other humans, but wont work on a predator. You want to sound intimidating and big, not small and weak. Of course you aren't ever going to sound bigger than a grizzly in feeding mode. At that point your only hope is something unnatural like a bearbanger (firework) gunshot or metallic sound, something to break the predator's confidence. Sounding like food won't help.
Bears are more complex than their species. A black bear in protective mode trying to scare you away from its cubs/kill/den won't back down from a fight. Better to retreat quietly. And lying on the ground won't save you from a brown bear in predator mode. You need to read the animal just as you would read an aggressive dog. But a polar bear within 10 feet of you is another thing. I'm no gun nut, but a fully-automatic AR-15 with a 30-round mag is totally reasonable when in the arctic. Or an automatic shotgun. Don't mess around in polar bear territory.
Those aren't ideal rounds, but you're getting piled on so I'm gonna point out to all the pilers-on that 20+ rounds of 5.56 at bear-attack range is sufficient to kill any bear. It's not what I'd want, but we are talking about 20-30 holes in an animal. Not to mention the arterial damage from the impact shock. Anyone that's shot an animal with a fast round knows just what that can do to a circulatory system.
As someone that routinely arms themselves against grizzlies and has had hostile encounters where I have scared them off with gun shots, I basically refuse to carry anything smaller than 10 mm with Underwood Dangerous Game rounds, and even that is a tradeoff. There are plenty of stories of people killing grizzlies with smaller rounds, but what there aren't are stories of people shooting grizzlies with very big rounds, and the grizzlies not dying. Whereas 357 magnum, 9 mm, etc, all take a lot of rounds to kill on average. 44 magnum is pretty much "sufficient" and if you go to rifles, center mass from a +P hardcast 45-70 will drop any grizzly in one shot. Even out of an 18" barrel. The Marlin 1895 has grown a reputation among bush pilots for that reason.
These debates rage on endlessly because they're entertaining, but ultimately the human with the gun is 50%+ of the equation...not the gun.
Are you hunting the bear? Or carrying insurance in case of a bear attack while conducting some other activity? Both are very different things.
5.56mm is a very small cartridge for game that large, and with full auto you will spray wide and in a few seconds have an empty mag. Besides, within 10 feet everything that can go wrong has gone wrong and you will likely get mauled anyway. Large magazine rifles with backup pistols do have a niche in hunting packs of aggressive wild boars in close quarters, but that is an exceedingly dangerous hobby best left to those with a background in door-kicking.
You should spend some time learning about guns, because an AR-15 isn't even remotely enough firepower for a bear. A common opinion is that 5.56 is so small it's not appropriate to hunt deer with, so if the bear has decided to eat you then 30 rounds of 5.56 is just going to piss it off.
An AR-15 is woefully undersized for any bear, let alone a polar bear to take humanely. Not that it is impossible to use something less - the Inuit apparently sometimes take polar bear with a 22LR. Which is an upgrade from the spears they used to use, apparently. But you are no Inuit.
Also, a lot of them disappear on the ice each year.
You also aren’t going to get a fully automatic one as a civilian without a massive amount of paperwork. A military M4 is even less adequate due to the short barrel length.
Typically, a 12 gauge with 3” slugs is the minimum ‘good idea’ big bear defense gun.
45-70 with modern (high pressure) loads, or a 30-06 with heavy bullets (200gr partitions) are also considered good to adequate - at least for Kodiak brown, which is close.
The issue is with shot placement.
Someone successfully defended themselves against a Kodiak brown bear attack with a 9mm because they were lucky and got a great shot through the nasal cavity from 6-8ft away. Albeit with extremely hot ammo.
[https://www.americanhunter.org/content/alaska-outfitter-defe...]
do not underestimate how difficult or dangerous that shot would be to make. The shooter had been a hunting guide in that area for 30 years.
The same bear, if the shot was a couple inches higher, would have been able to keep going even if hit with a 12 gauge slug. They have highly armored skulls. [https://www.reddit.com/r/badassanimals/comments/14die7f/kodi...] Males in particular are also used to (and regularly do) literally fight grizzly bears, so are not cowardly opponents.
Many people disappear in that area every year, while armed. Eaten by bears is the presumed cause for a significant portion of them, but no one can tell for sure since the bodies never get found.
The US Air Force used to issue (literal) bazookas to airmen it stationed above the arctic circle as it was the only adequate man portable weapon they had that would consistently and reliably work if they could hit the bear with it.
Because that is not how I would describe the experience. Especially for registered machine guns. Also, it’s $200 except for AOW which is $5.
- Live in a Class 3 friendly state (so no living in California and then flying to Alaska for a trip)
- Form the gun trust (good idea).
- get yourself and any other controlling parties fingerprinted (the special way the ATF wants)
- get passport photos of yourself and any other controlling parties
- fill out the form 4 just right in the esoteric way they need
- then submit it all and wait 6 months to a year for them to return the stamped paperwork so you can actually possess the item. If you did everything right.
- if you messed something up, either redo it and go back to the front of the line, or (if you’re lucky) amend it ASAP when the examiner reaches out to you randomly when they find the problem.
Oh and a beat up but transferable M16 is what, $20-30k right now? More if in better condition?
That may not seem like a lot of paperwork to you, but for most Americans it definitely is. Oh, and you need to carry the stamped form 4 with you in the field, in case a cop runs across you and wants to be sure it’s legal.
Also, way outside the actual use case here, which is something to drag around in wilderness conditions that will make an angry polar bear stop trying to eat you at a moments notice. Preferably that can be abused and mistreated without causing problems too.
Which a $500 pump 12 gauge shotgun you can buy over the counter at any gun store is quite capable of doing very well with decent ammo.
And won’t require a 5320.20 be submitted (and take a month or more to get back to you) if you want to cross state lines.
Also, Canada is generally okay with pump shotguns, not with machine guns (registered in the US or not), and a lot of folks going to Alaska want to be able to drive over the border at some point.
I’m really curious what the odds would be of anyone making a fuss in legit polar bear territory though, hah.
Also killer whales. It is disturbing to see them playing "catch" with a seal. At the same time they typically don't harm humans that share their space, it is curious
I have seen trailcamera footage of a cougar bringing a live deer back to its cubs so they can learn how to kill. The cubs seemed confused, playing with the deer.
This kind of behavior is common to housecats too - they'll lame a small animal and bring it to their kittens for practice.
Another thing worth noting - most cats like to eat their prey intestines first without caring whether or not it's alive (for pre-digested fiber and other nutrients not common in meat). For larger cats that often hunt by leaping from above and breaking the neck in one stroke the prey will probably be dead, but otherwise they're probably not.
Even without kittens, house cats will often take a captured small animal inside (still alive) and dump it near their caretaker and expect them to finish the job.
Our cat has only access to a confined (extremely high walls) garden (largely left to grow wild for environmental reasons) due to proximity to a road where people drive extremely badly, and still manages to occasionally succeed at bringing something in, usually dumping it at someone’s feet and going “ok you do it”.
My interpretation of that behavior is that they think you're a kitten. After all, they've never seen you kill anything! It's reasonable to conclude that you need some practice.
I specified primates because big cats eat more baboons than humans, but they kill both species in a very similar fashion, so let's open up the problem space.
So, really straightforward, in the context of bears eating people, someone implied that a cat will toy with you to death. I asked for evidence that they do this with primates, someone shared an anecdote about deer that isn't relevant to "bears eating people".
I'm not saying primates are exceptional, rather, that the story about deer is irrelevant.
The presence of a neck means the cat is more likely to play with its food? That is outside my world model having lived around wild predators, including wild cats, most of my life. I had a mountain lion kill a deer three nights ago outside my house on our property. It seemingly didn't kill it outright since I heard the deer 15 minutes later make a similar sound. I have seen the same behavior in house cats with mice and lizards. The case is on y'all to say why a primate as prey would be different
I think "play with their prey" is hard to define. But since you seem to just want big cats doing that behavior whatever it is with humans, is 10-15 minutes enough?
"The tiger was seen batting the young man like a toy as he held his hands in prayer. Masqood was grabbed by the neck as terrified witnesses began throwing sticks and stones, shooting at the animal in an attempt to distract it in a desperate bid to save Masqood.
One witness recalled racing over to the enclosure after hearing Masqood's screams. There, he saw Masqood locked in the tiger's jaws, "writhing badly in pain". He added that Masqood "kept suffering for the next 10-15 minutes" with another witness saying Vijay the tiger kept "roaming around" the enclosure, carrying Masqood by his neck."
I don't think it's considered unusual, I've heard it a few times before. Stories you hear will be animals with human exposure generally. If you want to get deep into it that's a thesis. But big cats not killing primates quickly seems not unusual.
How can someone tell, in an audio recording of a man being eaten by a bear, that at one specific point, you are hearing his arm being separated from his body? I'd like to think that he narrated it while it was happening. But imma call BS on this one.
I went on a Grizzly Man return deep dive the other day and found the autopsy reports and ranger reports. Those rangers had a very scary time returning to that scene. There is a lot to be learned here.
I read once that the root word that evolved into all the modern Indo-European variants of bear began as a euphemism to avoid having to say the creature’s name and risking summoning it. It meant something like “the brown one.”
In English, and other Germanic language, it comes from the brown one. In Slavic languages bears are called honey eaters. In other languages though like Welsh they don't appear to have had the taboo and use a deririvative of the older PIE word, which is thought to be something like rktho.
Biologists often have a lens for the world that I deeply admire. This one was a very éloquent intetviewee. They were very humanizing as well as empathetic and analytical in their discussion of Treadwell. They were also pragmatic about what it all means in context for the bears and the world. What a person.
I was interested to see that this link was flagged the other day after getting around 15 upvotes but no comments. Pleased to see it back as I thought the post was worthy of a read.
Watching this film set me off in a Herzog marathon - amazing director.
(edit - a little researching and I see this is the same post that I vouched after it was flagged, pleased to see the system lets good links back)
<Watching this film set me off in a Herzog marathon - amazing director.>
While in Alaska for the shoot, Hertzog took the time to address students at the U of Alaska in Anchorage. It was in the evening, in a teeny classroom, with only a few people there.
The only thing I remember (man, that was awhile ago) was how personable Herzog was. He told the story of his start, that when he was just a very young teenager, he stole (stole!) a rather expensive camera to shoot his first story. "You stole it?" someone conversationally asked? "Yes, I REALLY wanted to film," Hertzog gleefully replied.
He recounts this story in his book, Every Man for Himself and God Against All, which is a cracking read. The audiobook is narrated by him, so I imagine that would be worth a listen (not done it myself). I had the privilege to see him talk in London several years ago, and the thing that struck me from both the talk and the book, was how curious he is is about things, and his general attitude of just trying to do the things he was interested in regardless of obstacles, exploring his ideas, no matter how hard, outlandish or crazy they were.
What is definitely wrong in this article is the claim, that only bears eat living prey. Also wolves do that. There are many cases where wolves attacked animals (cows, sheep, deer), and as soon as those are immobilized, start feeding. Sometimes these animals survive with horrible wounds. Many images and videos can be found via google.
Nature is brutal, we should all be really thankful that we get to die in a bed being made as comfortable as possible. For every other animal in history death was almost guaranteed to be something scary and painful.
I doubt that statement was meant to be some kind of absolute rule, big cats will definitely eat you alive if they feel like it. But at least you are perhaps more likely to get a quick death..
The advice I grew up with (in swedish bear country) is to do these things, in order:
1. Make noise while in the woods, bears will generally avoid you if they know you are there. You don’t want to startle a bear.
2. If charged, stay calm, make yourself big and talk to the bear, move slowly.
3. If attacked, play dead.
With luck, the bear will lose interest once it doesn’t perceive you as a threat. If it’s hungry, well, bad luck. There have been cases of people scaring bears off by punching them in the nose, so as a final resort I guess that’s something to try.
In the hierarchy of fucking with things and getting fucked with ,think of yourself as one of the first.
If your solution to problems is sentences that start with so, you are food. What can help is a warmup to kill display. Means,you show a little magic show of dexterity while moving forward. Throw a knife up and down,raise internal doubts.Suprises kill the predator mood.The predator being used to your presence is thus bad.
I think it is extremely common in the animal world, if not the default. Thinking of other biomes Fish and reptiles almost always do it. I suspect anything which a substantial size difference does it and it is only avoided when you have pretty that is very dangerous to the predator.
Yep. That keeps happening e.g. in the mountains in northern italy. Cows with huge wounds stumble back from the field, it's horrific. And when the farmers kill a wolf it's an outpour of indignation from animal welfare :/
Mastiff dogs are the real culprits in more cases that people would expect. Had been videotaped doing exactly this. A wolf pack will kill the prey, two mastiffs just bite, sit and wait watching the cow die. They can't kill the cow efficiently.
They will respect animals in their "family" herd, but don't have this restriction against cattle from other herds or species that are not defending, specially when not feed accurately by the owners (If they guard sheep they can still see young cows as fair game).
The main difference between wolves and shepherd dogs is that dogs aren't neither afraid to cows or men.
There is a part of me that strongly identifies with the "Grizzly Man" and Supertramps of the world. Yeah, often they make stupid decisions and go into things unprepared. But they are willing to go into the unknown in a way the vast majority of society is not. They are trying to experience the world as humans throughout history have experienced the world. And their experience ending in their death isn't the condemnation that people seem to think it is. Because that's where we all end up. And they reached that point by doing things that were not just outside of their comfort zone but the comfort zone of every normie in this country. They are easy to ridicule from the safety of a youtube video, but these people actually lived in these places and experienced these things in a way the vast majority of modern humanity never will. It's easy to judge. It's far more difficult to live in a way that defies society. Even when those lives are cut short, I think it's worth exploring and celebrating. They were trying to buck the trend. They were real hackers in a way most on this site cannot really comprehend.
Being stupid and selfish should not be celebrated at all but warned against!
He did not understand bears, just saw them how he wanted them to be and actually did them a severe disservice!
Going outside of you comfort zone is valuable though, but only if done with knowledge of your own limits and consequences!
e.g. I live in the Alps and we have much too many stupid tourists' emergencies in the mountains due to ignorance than should be. They know nothing about the mountains, the tour, how weather is up there, what equipment and clothing to bring and wear and completely disregard advice of locals.
Then Mountain Rescue risk their lives and health to get them down. Most of them volunteers no less!
But how is it the unknown if anyone with half a brain can predict what will happen to them?
> these people actually lived in these places and experienced these things in a way the vast majority of modern humanity never will
That is true, but it is not like the only way to experience the wilderness is by being reckless. There is a ton of people enjoying this kind of thing without getting bears killed for no good reason.
Being reckless and going off unprepared is a different type of experience. You can't have the same experience if you come prepared.
Yes, you might die, but while you're alive you're really living.
I'm quite comfortable living an ordinary comfortable life and preparing in advance for novel experiences, but I'm glad some people throw caution to the wind and chance it. It takes all sorts to make the world.
> Yes, you might die, but while you're alive you're really living.
You're very privileged to be able to think this way. And very naïve.
A lot of people in our world spend a lot of time trying not to die, and they don't think, "wow, this is really living" while they're scrabbling for survival.
I've been in a few situations where death was close and I don't think "wow, I was really living then".
At best I thought "well that fucking sucked", at worst I spent years recovering from PTSD.
> Yes, you might die, but while you're alive you're really living.
Now this is pod-racing.
I'm sorry you feel you've been missing out by living a safe and comfortable life, but you really haven't missed out at all.
But shit, just go skydiving or mountaineering, get this weird mindset out of your system.
> They are trying to experience the world as humans throughout history have experienced the world.
There was a critical difference between these cases. Early humans grew up within nature so they had a lot of skill and knowledge. I loved Into the Wild and thought I identified with Christopher McCandless too. But the way he packed was not conducive with survival. He sadly didn’t know enough to know how much danger he put himself in.
There is a lot to mourn and a lot to learn. But there’s really nothing to celebrate - these were complicated people who behaved like they had a death wish. Early humans had a survival wish and while it didn’t always work out, the motivation was different.
>> They were real hackers in a way most on this site cannot really comprehend.
Oh we all know what this was. It was someone doing something stupid and filming it. He can pretend that he was studying behavior but he broke that mirror when he started interacting with bears. This was someone creating footage in order to market that footage and support his lifestyle, no different than people in wingsuits doing dangerous stunts for clicks. Both were "experts" in the thing they were doing, right up until that thing killed them.
I don't say I identify with him but I have some respect and even admiration for McCandless, because I think I understand his feelings from what I've read and watched about him, but I don't have the same feeling for Treadwell though
To be fair to McCandles, who was generally extremely foolish in what he did too, at least his idiocy and lack of really basic preparation didn't get anyone else killed.
Retrieving him was a choice. This attitude that we have to rescue everybody from the backcountry whether dead or alive is silly. We could just leave the fools out there. At the very least, then we wouldn't have to put up with all these arguments about what you should or shouldn't do in the backcountry because of the externalities incurred when SAR gets involved.
Nah, McCandless deserves no respect or admiration at all. He was arrogant, and he died, and someone else had to drag his decomposed corpse out of the bus.
At least he didn't get his girlfriend eaten by a bear I suppose.
> someone else had to drag his decomposed corpse out of the bus.
That will happen with all of us probably, whether it's a bus, a bathtub, or a senior living apartment. When I read Into the Wild I had the same feelings that this arrogant idiot deserved to die.
Now that I'm older and I can feel the heat death of me and everything I've touched I'm starting to second guess that feeling. We're all arrogant, ignorant, and selfish, and dying is going to most likely hurt no matter how it happens. Why not be a fool?
Upvote, though I'm not a fan of "can't comprehend"
But broadly, Nassim Nicholas Taleb's work changed my thinking a bit on when I see people doing brave (and/or perhaps goddamn stupid) stuff like this. Skin in the game is powerful.
There is something to be said for -- "as long as you're ONLY putting yourself in harm's way, do your thing."
Again, I think playing around with bears is dumb as all hell, but for (an admittedly different) example, I no longer make fun of the Lifelock guy. Went from idiot to hero in my book.
Supertramp wasn't "going outside the comfort zone of normies", he was making very bad, very stupid decisions that inflicted suffering on those he loved.
Oh, and the people who had to recover his corpse.
Yeah, fuck those normies and their "maps" and "bushcraft relevant to their ecosystem", this guy was the real deal huh.
No point in learning from others, just wing it and die a pointless needless death.
> I think it's worth exploring and celebrating.
I feel that this points to a certain existential angst you may be feeling, but please let me assure you that dying alone and scared like these two munters is not the way to resolve it.
And for the love of all that's holy, please stop romanticising selfish idiots.
The only nice thing I can say about Supertramp is that he didn't directly endanger anyone else, unlike the guy who got his girlfriend eaten by bears.
>They are trying to experience the world as humans throughout history have experienced the world.
Except this isn't really true. Humans throughout history are invariably tribal, not solitary. Their solitary pursuits are in many ways profoundly modern and in keeping with the entire tradition of solipsistic modernity.
> these people actually lived in these places and experienced these things in a way the vast majority of modern humanity never will.
But...so? The same could be said if they moved to any developing country (I live in a developing country) but nobody is valorising that in the same way.
This silly reddit narrative, invented to push a political viewpoint, is utter hogwash. There have always been individuals living a solitary lifestyle- explorers and homesteaders, scouts, traders, hunters and fishermen.
I don't identify with it at all, but I'm glad some people do.
When we finally get our shit together and send people to Mars despite that being a one-way trip, I'm glad there will be volunteers who will sign up for that and go be pioneers. I hope they get a school named after them.
Except these "Grizzly Men" and Supertramps of the world can only do what they do because society has enabled them to do that. Try living that life without any technology, transportation, modern outdoor equipment, drugs/medications, etc. It's an unproductive and essentially narcissistic way of living, whereas hackers create. This is precisely why Timothy had to build this ridiculous fantasy of him being the protector of these bears, whereas in fact it was him who needed the bears to satisfy his egomania.
My father was a field biologist. His specialties: grizzly and polar bears. I've sat on both after tranquilized whereupon basic data is taken and radio attached (1970-1980 tech). Hemingway would have killed to his buddy. He then went on to build and run a naturalist lodge -- all this in the far far north west of Canada. Accessible by bush plane only. As a guest you could ask about flora, mammals, birds, fishing, moose, bears, Dall horn sheep, plants, birds of prey, ecology circles etc and you'd get a good answer. I got to see all this up close over my summers. When you spend that kind of time where mother nature is that unmessed around with ... well I understand now why some people are partial to land being left alone and probably why city people will never get it. There's a connection to it. I wrote all to to say: there were no tvs, no camera crews, no shows 6pm west coast 9pm est. You were there cause of passion. Because of a decision. And frankly, that's the better way.
Cowboys and corporations naturally collide: Ian Tyson
I think this background is why I've never been fully happy in Corporate America. The petty control -- where's your badge? -- even though I worked at the damn place for 10+ years is something I'll never understand. Petty beurceatric control to "help you" ... I miss the old days
The reason was probably that I really did not have anything to eat. Just some kilos of flour for rainy days. I was living on fish and berries for 3 months.
Erh What. There is only one foodstore on Kodiak. I had what I could carry in one dry-pack. I sometimes made bear-proof stashes, because coast guard nannies so suggested, but it did not seem to matter. Only foxes were real nuisance, they chewed my wetsuit for example.
The most tragic part about this story is not his death, he chose a lifestyle and stuck to it despite all the warnings, for me it's the fact he persuaded his girlfriend to camp with him in bear territory and ultimately got her mauled as well.
Frying pan wasn't the way to go with a grizzly. There was a group of collegiate wrestlers that managed to survive a violent predatory grizzly attack. Bear was trying to eat them.
It seems like they survived the initial attack by sticking their hands balls deep into the bear's mouth while it was attacking. They took compound bone fractures and one of them got a bicep nearly ripped off. Bear was persistent and attacked twice. Tried to bury one of them in the dirt (for the cubs) and left. They managed to escape with some very haggard injuries. Bottom line is I wouldn't go deep into grizzly territory unless I had a twelve gauge with 00 buck shot. Inland grizzly bears have dwindling fish stock and they hunt large game and they're wildly aggressive. Yellowstone had 62 instances of bears charging hikers in 2011 from what I saw.
She fought the bear whilst it was attacking her boyfriend. She didn't run when he told her too, but stood there smacking the bear on the head with a frying pan like something out of a Tom and Jerry cartoon.
Not the OP, but I have some of the same concern. No, it's not a "mockumentary"; yes, it's based on true events; but based on some of Herzog's other films and public statements, there are good reasons to doubt that it's a straight factual account of what happened. Herzog has frequently stated that he's not trying to relate straight facts, but is going for a deeper truth.
In pursuit of this, he's frequently bent the facts in his other "documentaries" to achieve the narrative that he's aiming for. I vouched for the parent comment because I think it's a view that should be discussed rather than suppressed. I like his art, but equating a Herzog documentary with factual truth is likely to end badly.
I've only skimmed it (and I don't have time to read it closer today) but this looks to be a decent academic paper that explores some of the problems with Grizzly Man:
Conceiving Grizzly Man through the "Powers of the False"
...
But is Grizzly Man a documentary at all? Is it a "true" or appropriate representation of reality?Grizzly Man engages in "creative falsification" -- a cinematic concept theorized by Gilles Deleuze in which the filmmaker generates optical images which bond to virtual images (or images that evoke a people's general past, fantasies, and dreams) to reveal some representation of "truth"
Fascinating paper. The primary point doesn't seem to be that Hetzog has bent any facts, but willfully presents his subjective interpretation of the world.
It is more akin to the idea that all perception, thought, meaning, and opinions operate in a realm distinct from the material world.
The following sentences after your quote make this clear.
>But is Grizzly Man a documentary at all? Is it a "true" or appropriate representation of
reality? Most scholars presently writing on documentary posit that the duplication of realities
through cinema is always fictional because of its use of rhetorical figures and emblematic
symbolism, regardless of claims of objectivity or historical significance. As a filmmaker, Herzog shares this ideological: all documentary is false even if it conveys the myth of objectivity
> doubt that it's a straight factual account of what happened.
Maybe I'm misremembering but I don't remember this "documentary" having any narrative or facts. It's not trying to teach you anything reality, it just seems to be about 2 people perspectives about living in nature amongst bears. Again, it was a while ago since I watched it so maybe I'm not remembering accurately.
> Wes: There’s audio recording of him dying. My advisor listened to it. I’ve never listened to it, but it’s 15 minutes of him being dismantled by a bear. You can hear his arm being separated from his body in it. It’s the worst possible way to go.
God, I remember watching the scene in "Grizzly Man" in which Werner Herzog listens to this exact audio recording. Even via proxy, it's very hard to stomach.
https://youtu.be/IP2BQLOWi4M?si=yy76XPhS6woyyA86&t=170
In Herzog's own words:
> It's the most terrifying thing I've ever heard in my life. Being shocked like that, I told her, "You should never listen to it, and you should rather destroy [the tape]. It should not be sitting on your shelf in your living room all the time."
https://youtu.be/nU5cMZymSr0
Dont worry, not a violent attack. This is a black bear digging into a girl's kayak as she yells at it. Notice how the bear ignores her pleadings. I have personally shouted at and scared away bears (bc, black bears). They do respond. But once they decide you are not a threat, or heaven help you food, they will ignore any noise you make. This girl's high-pitched squeals fall on deaf ears. The fuzzy dog-like intelligent animal becomes a monster.
Fyi, the girl's progressively higher pitch may do well to attract help from other humans, but wont work on a predator. You want to sound intimidating and big, not small and weak. Of course you aren't ever going to sound bigger than a grizzly in feeding mode. At that point your only hope is something unnatural like a bearbanger (firework) gunshot or metallic sound, something to break the predator's confidence. Sounding like food won't help.
If it's black fight back, if it's brown lie down, if it's white say goodnight.
Bears are more complex than their species. A black bear in protective mode trying to scare you away from its cubs/kill/den won't back down from a fight. Better to retreat quietly. And lying on the ground won't save you from a brown bear in predator mode. You need to read the animal just as you would read an aggressive dog. But a polar bear within 10 feet of you is another thing. I'm no gun nut, but a fully-automatic AR-15 with a 30-round mag is totally reasonable when in the arctic. Or an automatic shotgun. Don't mess around in polar bear territory.
Those aren't ideal rounds, but you're getting piled on so I'm gonna point out to all the pilers-on that 20+ rounds of 5.56 at bear-attack range is sufficient to kill any bear. It's not what I'd want, but we are talking about 20-30 holes in an animal. Not to mention the arterial damage from the impact shock. Anyone that's shot an animal with a fast round knows just what that can do to a circulatory system.
As someone that routinely arms themselves against grizzlies and has had hostile encounters where I have scared them off with gun shots, I basically refuse to carry anything smaller than 10 mm with Underwood Dangerous Game rounds, and even that is a tradeoff. There are plenty of stories of people killing grizzlies with smaller rounds, but what there aren't are stories of people shooting grizzlies with very big rounds, and the grizzlies not dying. Whereas 357 magnum, 9 mm, etc, all take a lot of rounds to kill on average. 44 magnum is pretty much "sufficient" and if you go to rifles, center mass from a +P hardcast 45-70 will drop any grizzly in one shot. Even out of an 18" barrel. The Marlin 1895 has grown a reputation among bush pilots for that reason.
These debates rage on endlessly because they're entertaining, but ultimately the human with the gun is 50%+ of the equation...not the gun.
Marlin with government rounds is what I'd the with me into the bush.
Is two comments really a "pile on"?
Are you hunting the bear? Or carrying insurance in case of a bear attack while conducting some other activity? Both are very different things.
5.56mm is a very small cartridge for game that large, and with full auto you will spray wide and in a few seconds have an empty mag. Besides, within 10 feet everything that can go wrong has gone wrong and you will likely get mauled anyway. Large magazine rifles with backup pistols do have a niche in hunting packs of aggressive wild boars in close quarters, but that is an exceedingly dangerous hobby best left to those with a background in door-kicking.
You should spend some time learning about guns, because an AR-15 isn't even remotely enough firepower for a bear. A common opinion is that 5.56 is so small it's not appropriate to hunt deer with, so if the bear has decided to eat you then 30 rounds of 5.56 is just going to piss it off.
An AR-15 is woefully undersized for any bear, let alone a polar bear to take humanely. Not that it is impossible to use something less - the Inuit apparently sometimes take polar bear with a 22LR. Which is an upgrade from the spears they used to use, apparently. But you are no Inuit.
Also, a lot of them disappear on the ice each year.
You also aren’t going to get a fully automatic one as a civilian without a massive amount of paperwork. A military M4 is even less adequate due to the short barrel length.
Typically, a 12 gauge with 3” slugs is the minimum ‘good idea’ big bear defense gun.
45-70 with modern (high pressure) loads, or a 30-06 with heavy bullets (200gr partitions) are also considered good to adequate - at least for Kodiak brown, which is close.
The issue is with shot placement.
Someone successfully defended themselves against a Kodiak brown bear attack with a 9mm because they were lucky and got a great shot through the nasal cavity from 6-8ft away. Albeit with extremely hot ammo. [https://www.americanhunter.org/content/alaska-outfitter-defe...]
do not underestimate how difficult or dangerous that shot would be to make. The shooter had been a hunting guide in that area for 30 years.
The same bear, if the shot was a couple inches higher, would have been able to keep going even if hit with a 12 gauge slug. They have highly armored skulls. [https://www.reddit.com/r/badassanimals/comments/14die7f/kodi...] Males in particular are also used to (and regularly do) literally fight grizzly bears, so are not cowardly opponents.
Many people disappear in that area every year, while armed. Eaten by bears is the presumed cause for a significant portion of them, but no one can tell for sure since the bodies never get found.
The US Air Force used to issue (literal) bazookas to airmen it stationed above the arctic circle as it was the only adequate man portable weapon they had that would consistently and reliably work if they could hit the bear with it.
The stamp to own a fully auto is only like $300 and a couple pages of paperwork.
Do you own any Class 3 items?
Because that is not how I would describe the experience. Especially for registered machine guns. Also, it’s $200 except for AOW which is $5.
- Live in a Class 3 friendly state (so no living in California and then flying to Alaska for a trip)
- Form the gun trust (good idea).
- get yourself and any other controlling parties fingerprinted (the special way the ATF wants)
- get passport photos of yourself and any other controlling parties
- fill out the form 4 just right in the esoteric way they need
- then submit it all and wait 6 months to a year for them to return the stamped paperwork so you can actually possess the item. If you did everything right.
- if you messed something up, either redo it and go back to the front of the line, or (if you’re lucky) amend it ASAP when the examiner reaches out to you randomly when they find the problem.
Oh and a beat up but transferable M16 is what, $20-30k right now? More if in better condition?
That may not seem like a lot of paperwork to you, but for most Americans it definitely is. Oh, and you need to carry the stamped form 4 with you in the field, in case a cop runs across you and wants to be sure it’s legal.
Also, way outside the actual use case here, which is something to drag around in wilderness conditions that will make an angry polar bear stop trying to eat you at a moments notice. Preferably that can be abused and mistreated without causing problems too.
Which a $500 pump 12 gauge shotgun you can buy over the counter at any gun store is quite capable of doing very well with decent ammo.
And won’t require a 5320.20 be submitted (and take a month or more to get back to you) if you want to cross state lines.
Also, Canada is generally okay with pump shotguns, not with machine guns (registered in the US or not), and a lot of folks going to Alaska want to be able to drive over the border at some point.
I’m really curious what the odds would be of anyone making a fuss in legit polar bear territory though, hah.
(Apparently, yes I am that kind of nerd too)
As an american citizen, I imagine.
If a bear wants you dead and you aren't prepared, you're dead.
If you actually care to survive, listen to this great talk before heading out to bear country https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PExlT-5VU-Y
By the end of the video I was rooting for the bear.
gotta give it up to tigers, at least they kill you in the neck first
I think the bear biologist forgot that cats often play with their prey before killing it.
Also killer whales. It is disturbing to see them playing "catch" with a seal. At the same time they typically don't harm humans that share their space, it is curious
Citation for big cats doing that with primates?
I have seen trailcamera footage of a cougar bringing a live deer back to its cubs so they can learn how to kill. The cubs seemed confused, playing with the deer.
This kind of behavior is common to housecats too - they'll lame a small animal and bring it to their kittens for practice.
Another thing worth noting - most cats like to eat their prey intestines first without caring whether or not it's alive (for pre-digested fiber and other nutrients not common in meat). For larger cats that often hunt by leaping from above and breaking the neck in one stroke the prey will probably be dead, but otherwise they're probably not.
Even without kittens, house cats will often take a captured small animal inside (still alive) and dump it near their caretaker and expect them to finish the job.
Our cat has only access to a confined (extremely high walls) garden (largely left to grow wild for environmental reasons) due to proximity to a road where people drive extremely badly, and still manages to occasionally succeed at bringing something in, usually dumping it at someone’s feet and going “ok you do it”.
My interpretation of that behavior is that they think you're a kitten. After all, they've never seen you kill anything! It's reasonable to conclude that you need some practice.
Always fun when the bird starts flying around the house.
I believe I mentioned primates?
That is probably overly specific.
What reason would you have to think that primates are exceptional?
I specified primates because big cats eat more baboons than humans, but they kill both species in a very similar fashion, so let's open up the problem space.
So, really straightforward, in the context of bears eating people, someone implied that a cat will toy with you to death. I asked for evidence that they do this with primates, someone shared an anecdote about deer that isn't relevant to "bears eating people".
I'm not saying primates are exceptional, rather, that the story about deer is irrelevant.
This is the funniest hill to die on. Thank you.
Classic HN.
[dead]
> someone shared an anecdote about [big cats eating] deer that isn't relevant to "bears eating people".
Would you admit that it's relevant to "big cats eating animals"?
If primates are not exceptional as prey, how is the deer irrelevant?
Primate == food; Deer == food
Why would one food be different?
Primates and Deer are shaped rather differently. Deer are 20% neck. I am with EdwardDiego on this one.
The presence of a neck means the cat is more likely to play with its food? That is outside my world model having lived around wild predators, including wild cats, most of my life. I had a mountain lion kill a deer three nights ago outside my house on our property. It seemingly didn't kill it outright since I heard the deer 15 minutes later make a similar sound. I have seen the same behavior in house cats with mice and lizards. The case is on y'all to say why a primate as prey would be different
I think "play with their prey" is hard to define. But since you seem to just want big cats doing that behavior whatever it is with humans, is 10-15 minutes enough?
https://www.themirror.com/news/world-news/horror-footage-sho...
"The tiger was seen batting the young man like a toy as he held his hands in prayer. Masqood was grabbed by the neck as terrified witnesses began throwing sticks and stones, shooting at the animal in an attempt to distract it in a desperate bid to save Masqood.
One witness recalled racing over to the enclosure after hearing Masqood's screams. There, he saw Masqood locked in the tiger's jaws, "writhing badly in pain". He added that Masqood "kept suffering for the next 10-15 minutes" with another witness saying Vijay the tiger kept "roaming around" the enclosure, carrying Masqood by his neck."
I don't think it's considered unusual, I've heard it a few times before. Stories you hear will be animals with human exposure generally. If you want to get deep into it that's a thesis. But big cats not killing primates quickly seems not unusual.
How can someone tell, in an audio recording of a man being eaten by a bear, that at one specific point, you are hearing his arm being separated from his body? I'd like to think that he narrated it while it was happening. But imma call BS on this one.
AHHHH NOT MY ARM.
Also, joints make a distinctive noise when being... decoupled. But I suspect the narration may have helped nail down which joint was in play.
He was alive and conscious for the 15 minutes of the attack. He may have screamed about his arm to his girlfriend.
It might make a rather distinctive sound, based on what I’ve heard from other large mammals being butchered.
And maybe the remaining physical evidence ruled out other limbs.
I went on a Grizzly Man return deep dive the other day and found the autopsy reports and ranger reports. Those rangers had a very scary time returning to that scene. There is a lot to be learned here.
https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/foia/upload/03-109_KATM_Treadwel...
I read once that the root word that evolved into all the modern Indo-European variants of bear began as a euphemism to avoid having to say the creature’s name and risking summoning it. It meant something like “the brown one.”
In English, and other Germanic language, it comes from the brown one. In Slavic languages bears are called honey eaters. In other languages though like Welsh they don't appear to have had the taboo and use a deririvative of the older PIE word, which is thought to be something like rktho.
Given the dearth of bears in Wales I suppose it’s an acceptable risk.
If you haven’t seen this you might enjoy: https://xkcd.com/2381/
Best quote from the article "It doesn’t sound like they needed him as much as he needed them." Bears don't need people, just leave them alone.
Biologists often have a lens for the world that I deeply admire. This one was a very éloquent intetviewee. They were very humanizing as well as empathetic and analytical in their discussion of Treadwell. They were also pragmatic about what it all means in context for the bears and the world. What a person.
I was interested to see that this link was flagged the other day after getting around 15 upvotes but no comments. Pleased to see it back as I thought the post was worthy of a read.
Watching this film set me off in a Herzog marathon - amazing director.
(edit - a little researching and I see this is the same post that I vouched after it was flagged, pleased to see the system lets good links back)
<Watching this film set me off in a Herzog marathon - amazing director.>
While in Alaska for the shoot, Hertzog took the time to address students at the U of Alaska in Anchorage. It was in the evening, in a teeny classroom, with only a few people there.
The only thing I remember (man, that was awhile ago) was how personable Herzog was. He told the story of his start, that when he was just a very young teenager, he stole (stole!) a rather expensive camera to shoot his first story. "You stole it?" someone conversationally asked? "Yes, I REALLY wanted to film," Hertzog gleefully replied.
He recounts this story in his book, Every Man for Himself and God Against All, which is a cracking read. The audiobook is narrated by him, so I imagine that would be worth a listen (not done it myself). I had the privilege to see him talk in London several years ago, and the thing that struck me from both the talk and the book, was how curious he is is about things, and his general attitude of just trying to do the things he was interested in regardless of obstacles, exploring his ideas, no matter how hard, outlandish or crazy they were.
That's Hertzog in a nutshell!
Impish, obliquely egotistical, kind and gifted.
He's the most palatable example of a Nietzsche-an superman
What is definitely wrong in this article is the claim, that only bears eat living prey. Also wolves do that. There are many cases where wolves attacked animals (cows, sheep, deer), and as soon as those are immobilized, start feeding. Sometimes these animals survive with horrible wounds. Many images and videos can be found via google.
Nature is brutal, we should all be really thankful that we get to die in a bed being made as comfortable as possible. For every other animal in history death was almost guaranteed to be something scary and painful.
Nature’s like living in a 24/7 horror movie for most things that aren’t humans.
All those pretty birds you see are like one mistake and bit of bad luck from being ripped to shreds—at all times. Yikes.
I've personally witnessed both wild dogs and lions in Botswana starting to eat their prey before it is dead.
I doubt that statement was meant to be some kind of absolute rule, big cats will definitely eat you alive if they feel like it. But at least you are perhaps more likely to get a quick death..
The advice I grew up with (in swedish bear country) is to do these things, in order:
1. Make noise while in the woods, bears will generally avoid you if they know you are there. You don’t want to startle a bear.
2. If charged, stay calm, make yourself big and talk to the bear, move slowly.
3. If attacked, play dead.
With luck, the bear will lose interest once it doesn’t perceive you as a threat. If it’s hungry, well, bad luck. There have been cases of people scaring bears off by punching them in the nose, so as a final resort I guess that’s something to try.
Grizzly: play dead. Black bear: fight back. Polar bear: make your peace with God.
If it's brown, lay down. If it's black, fight back. If it's white, good night.
If it's jelly, put it in your belly. If it's teddy, take it to beddy.
Sedges have edges, rushes are round. Grasses are hollow and grow in the ground.
In the hierarchy of fucking with things and getting fucked with ,think of yourself as one of the first. If your solution to problems is sentences that start with so, you are food. What can help is a warmup to kill display. Means,you show a little magic show of dexterity while moving forward. Throw a knife up and down,raise internal doubts.Suprises kill the predator mood.The predator being used to your presence is thus bad.
> What is definitely wrong in this article is the claim, that only bears eat living prey. Also wolves do that.
And horses¹. And deer².
1. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnYNmGMsU18>
2. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQOQdBLHrLk>
I think it is extremely common in the animal world, if not the default. Thinking of other biomes Fish and reptiles almost always do it. I suspect anything which a substantial size difference does it and it is only avoided when you have pretty that is very dangerous to the predator.
Hyenas too. They sometimes chase their prey for hours until it drops, then leisurely consume the softest parts first, like the genitalia.
[flagged]
Yep. That keeps happening e.g. in the mountains in northern italy. Cows with huge wounds stumble back from the field, it's horrific. And when the farmers kill a wolf it's an outpour of indignation from animal welfare :/
Mastiff dogs are the real culprits in more cases that people would expect. Had been videotaped doing exactly this. A wolf pack will kill the prey, two mastiffs just bite, sit and wait watching the cow die. They can't kill the cow efficiently.
They will respect animals in their "family" herd, but don't have this restriction against cattle from other herds or species that are not defending, specially when not feed accurately by the owners (If they guard sheep they can still see young cows as fair game).
The main difference between wolves and shepherd dogs is that dogs aren't neither afraid to cows or men.
There is a part of me that strongly identifies with the "Grizzly Man" and Supertramps of the world. Yeah, often they make stupid decisions and go into things unprepared. But they are willing to go into the unknown in a way the vast majority of society is not. They are trying to experience the world as humans throughout history have experienced the world. And their experience ending in their death isn't the condemnation that people seem to think it is. Because that's where we all end up. And they reached that point by doing things that were not just outside of their comfort zone but the comfort zone of every normie in this country. They are easy to ridicule from the safety of a youtube video, but these people actually lived in these places and experienced these things in a way the vast majority of modern humanity never will. It's easy to judge. It's far more difficult to live in a way that defies society. Even when those lives are cut short, I think it's worth exploring and celebrating. They were trying to buck the trend. They were real hackers in a way most on this site cannot really comprehend.
Being stupid and selfish should not be celebrated at all but warned against!
He did not understand bears, just saw them how he wanted them to be and actually did them a severe disservice!
Going outside of you comfort zone is valuable though, but only if done with knowledge of your own limits and consequences!
e.g. I live in the Alps and we have much too many stupid tourists' emergencies in the mountains due to ignorance than should be. They know nothing about the mountains, the tour, how weather is up there, what equipment and clothing to bring and wear and completely disregard advice of locals. Then Mountain Rescue risk their lives and health to get them down. Most of them volunteers no less!
> and actually did them a severe disservice!
I can't imagine what disservice was done. A guy hung around bears for a while, and one ate him and his girlfriend.
To the bears literally nothing happened of note.
Had you read the article, you would have known that two bears were put down, as a direct result of all this.
Two of the bears that ate him and his girlfriend got killed.
The bears were shot and killed.
Reputation damage
> To the bears literally nothing happened of note.
They ate an exotic meal.
> they are willing to go into the unknown
But how is it the unknown if anyone with half a brain can predict what will happen to them?
> these people actually lived in these places and experienced these things in a way the vast majority of modern humanity never will
That is true, but it is not like the only way to experience the wilderness is by being reckless. There is a ton of people enjoying this kind of thing without getting bears killed for no good reason.
Being reckless and going off unprepared is a different type of experience. You can't have the same experience if you come prepared.
Yes, you might die, but while you're alive you're really living.
I'm quite comfortable living an ordinary comfortable life and preparing in advance for novel experiences, but I'm glad some people throw caution to the wind and chance it. It takes all sorts to make the world.
> Yes, you might die, but while you're alive you're really living.
You're very privileged to be able to think this way. And very naïve.
A lot of people in our world spend a lot of time trying not to die, and they don't think, "wow, this is really living" while they're scrabbling for survival.
I've been in a few situations where death was close and I don't think "wow, I was really living then".
At best I thought "well that fucking sucked", at worst I spent years recovering from PTSD.
> Yes, you might die, but while you're alive you're really living.
Now this is pod-racing.
I'm sorry you feel you've been missing out by living a safe and comfortable life, but you really haven't missed out at all.
But shit, just go skydiving or mountaineering, get this weird mindset out of your system.
There's a big difference between putting yourself in a dangerous situation by choice and being in one out of necessity.
That's not "really living", what you're talking about takes time, and people like these are often really short of it.
> They are trying to experience the world as humans throughout history have experienced the world.
There was a critical difference between these cases. Early humans grew up within nature so they had a lot of skill and knowledge. I loved Into the Wild and thought I identified with Christopher McCandless too. But the way he packed was not conducive with survival. He sadly didn’t know enough to know how much danger he put himself in.
There is a lot to mourn and a lot to learn. But there’s really nothing to celebrate - these were complicated people who behaved like they had a death wish. Early humans had a survival wish and while it didn’t always work out, the motivation was different.
>> They were real hackers in a way most on this site cannot really comprehend.
Oh we all know what this was. It was someone doing something stupid and filming it. He can pretend that he was studying behavior but he broke that mirror when he started interacting with bears. This was someone creating footage in order to market that footage and support his lifestyle, no different than people in wingsuits doing dangerous stunts for clicks. Both were "experts" in the thing they were doing, right up until that thing killed them.
I don't say I identify with him but I have some respect and even admiration for McCandless, because I think I understand his feelings from what I've read and watched about him, but I don't have the same feeling for Treadwell though
They were both ill-prepared and harmed their environment. Anybody who gets help for their mental health problems deserves more admiration.
To be fair to McCandles, who was generally extremely foolish in what he did too, at least his idiocy and lack of really basic preparation didn't get anyone else killed.
Yeah, but someone had to handle his corpse. I mean, SAR people can get kinda used to it, but it's still going to ruin your day a little.
someone is going to have to handle everyones
Retrieving him was a choice. This attitude that we have to rescue everybody from the backcountry whether dead or alive is silly. We could just leave the fools out there. At the very least, then we wouldn't have to put up with all these arguments about what you should or shouldn't do in the backcountry because of the externalities incurred when SAR gets involved.
We should make it illegal to die
Civilized people walk into the incinerator alive.
I'd rather take my chance at being renewed in carousel than be terminated as a runner.
Nah, McCandless deserves no respect or admiration at all. He was arrogant, and he died, and someone else had to drag his decomposed corpse out of the bus.
At least he didn't get his girlfriend eaten by a bear I suppose.
> someone else had to drag his decomposed corpse out of the bus.
That will happen with all of us probably, whether it's a bus, a bathtub, or a senior living apartment. When I read Into the Wild I had the same feelings that this arrogant idiot deserved to die.
Now that I'm older and I can feel the heat death of me and everything I've touched I'm starting to second guess that feeling. We're all arrogant, ignorant, and selfish, and dying is going to most likely hurt no matter how it happens. Why not be a fool?
Upvote, though I'm not a fan of "can't comprehend"
But broadly, Nassim Nicholas Taleb's work changed my thinking a bit on when I see people doing brave (and/or perhaps goddamn stupid) stuff like this. Skin in the game is powerful.
There is something to be said for -- "as long as you're ONLY putting yourself in harm's way, do your thing."
Again, I think playing around with bears is dumb as all hell, but for (an admittedly different) example, I no longer make fun of the Lifelock guy. Went from idiot to hero in my book.
> every normie
Wow, really.
Supertramp wasn't "going outside the comfort zone of normies", he was making very bad, very stupid decisions that inflicted suffering on those he loved.
Oh, and the people who had to recover his corpse.
Yeah, fuck those normies and their "maps" and "bushcraft relevant to their ecosystem", this guy was the real deal huh.
No point in learning from others, just wing it and die a pointless needless death.
> I think it's worth exploring and celebrating.
I feel that this points to a certain existential angst you may be feeling, but please let me assure you that dying alone and scared like these two munters is not the way to resolve it.
And for the love of all that's holy, please stop romanticising selfish idiots.
The only nice thing I can say about Supertramp is that he didn't directly endanger anyone else, unlike the guy who got his girlfriend eaten by bears.
You ever wonder if your life's purpose is simply to serve as a warning sign for others?
>They are trying to experience the world as humans throughout history have experienced the world.
Except this isn't really true. Humans throughout history are invariably tribal, not solitary. Their solitary pursuits are in many ways profoundly modern and in keeping with the entire tradition of solipsistic modernity.
> these people actually lived in these places and experienced these things in a way the vast majority of modern humanity never will.
But...so? The same could be said if they moved to any developing country (I live in a developing country) but nobody is valorising that in the same way.
This silly reddit narrative, invented to push a political viewpoint, is utter hogwash. There have always been individuals living a solitary lifestyle- explorers and homesteaders, scouts, traders, hunters and fishermen.
And yet humans are absolutely social animals. The science is clear.
What a cute cop out
I don't identify with it at all, but I'm glad some people do.
When we finally get our shit together and send people to Mars despite that being a one-way trip, I'm glad there will be volunteers who will sign up for that and go be pioneers. I hope they get a school named after them.
Except these "Grizzly Men" and Supertramps of the world can only do what they do because society has enabled them to do that. Try living that life without any technology, transportation, modern outdoor equipment, drugs/medications, etc. It's an unproductive and essentially narcissistic way of living, whereas hackers create. This is precisely why Timothy had to build this ridiculous fantasy of him being the protector of these bears, whereas in fact it was him who needed the bears to satisfy his egomania.
Meh- people have done without the trappings of modern society, with varying levels of comfort, for thousands of years.
Yep, and how did humans survive this? By going out alone into the wilderness? That would be incredibly stupid. You die out there alone.
So here's what they did: they formed a group and worked together. You might even call it "society".
That was not always the case, contrary to what you want to believe.
Fortunately, you provide some cold hard facts that counter my beliefs.
nobody is concerned with your beliefs lol
“It is not the critic who counts..."
Eh, I’m fairly certain that point was passed many seasons before he finally got eaten.
Good point though!
My father was a field biologist. His specialties: grizzly and polar bears. I've sat on both after tranquilized whereupon basic data is taken and radio attached (1970-1980 tech). Hemingway would have killed to his buddy. He then went on to build and run a naturalist lodge -- all this in the far far north west of Canada. Accessible by bush plane only. As a guest you could ask about flora, mammals, birds, fishing, moose, bears, Dall horn sheep, plants, birds of prey, ecology circles etc and you'd get a good answer. I got to see all this up close over my summers. When you spend that kind of time where mother nature is that unmessed around with ... well I understand now why some people are partial to land being left alone and probably why city people will never get it. There's a connection to it. I wrote all to to say: there were no tvs, no camera crews, no shows 6pm west coast 9pm est. You were there cause of passion. Because of a decision. And frankly, that's the better way.
Cowboys and corporations naturally collide: Ian Tyson
I think this background is why I've never been fully happy in Corporate America. The petty control -- where's your badge? -- even though I worked at the damn place for 10+ years is something I'll never understand. Petty beurceatric control to "help you" ... I miss the old days
The clips reminded me of how great The Grizzly Man soundtrack is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly_Man_(soundtrack)
Richard Thompson is a genius.
I am also real life Grizzly Man. Watching Herzogs film 10 years later caused some indigestion.
Those damn bears totally ignored me. At this beach family of bears walked past my tent and did not even bother to investigate. https://youtu.be/IK0wJ9y266I?si=TokV4ewiEvhl5Qev&t=1470
The reason was probably that I really did not have anything to eat. Just some kilos of flour for rainy days. I was living on fish and berries for 3 months.
> The reason was probably that I really did not have anything to eat.
The reason was that they weren’t hungry.
Bears don’t randomly kill and eat every animal they encounter.
That can't be it: You had a lot to eat.
Erh What. There is only one foodstore on Kodiak. I had what I could carry in one dry-pack. I sometimes made bear-proof stashes, because coast guard nannies so suggested, but it did not seem to matter. Only foxes were real nuisance, they chewed my wetsuit for example.
You had a ton of meat on your bones.
Remarkably little. Under 60 kilos after 3 months on fish diet.
How much do you weigh?
Whoosh. That would be the sound of that bit of humor above flying right above your head.
That is some absolutely beautiful footage. Thank you for sharing!
Side note, the ffmpeg stabilization works surprisingly well -- thanks for sharing your commands in the YT comment!
the reason probably was that they weren't hungry enough. They took a measure of risk vs. need
Forget that, you need to start marketing your clipper vacuum attachment.
The most tragic part about this story is not his death, he chose a lifestyle and stuck to it despite all the warnings, for me it's the fact he persuaded his girlfriend to camp with him in bear territory and ultimately got her mauled as well.
Maybe she knew what she was doing and accepted the risks
Anyone who can spend 6 minutes fighting a bear with a frying pan is brave as fuck. She was a hero.
Frying pan wasn't the way to go with a grizzly. There was a group of collegiate wrestlers that managed to survive a violent predatory grizzly attack. Bear was trying to eat them.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wyoming-college-wrestlers-recount-...
It seems like they survived the initial attack by sticking their hands balls deep into the bear's mouth while it was attacking. They took compound bone fractures and one of them got a bicep nearly ripped off. Bear was persistent and attacked twice. Tried to bury one of them in the dirt (for the cubs) and left. They managed to escape with some very haggard injuries. Bottom line is I wouldn't go deep into grizzly territory unless I had a twelve gauge with 00 buck shot. Inland grizzly bears have dwindling fish stock and they hunt large game and they're wildly aggressive. Yellowstone had 62 instances of bears charging hikers in 2011 from what I saw.
I get most of my knowledge on grizzly bears from the Joe Pickett novels about a game warden in Wyoming.
But yeah, I'd want bear spray and a gun as plan b.
That's not my point.
Replies don't have to be a continuation of your point.
[flagged]
Yes, but you specifically mentioned her. I agree with you, but wanted to highlight her heroism (which in an ideal world would not have been needed)
what is heroic at all about fighting frantically for ones ones life?
The brave part Brave I get that. Heroic, not so much.
She fought the bear whilst it was attacking her boyfriend. She didn't run when he told her too, but stood there smacking the bear on the head with a frying pan like something out of a Tom and Jerry cartoon.
Rewatching this film, it really seemed fake to me. I love it, but I think it’s a mockumentary
What a strange comment. Rewatching means you've seen it at least twice but you think it's a mockumentary?
Please help me with this logic because there's absolutely nothing funny about this film which is arguably one of the most disturbing ever made.
I guess you must be unaware that the guy in the film was eventually mauled to death by bears?
You going to elaborate on that?
Not the OP, but I have some of the same concern. No, it's not a "mockumentary"; yes, it's based on true events; but based on some of Herzog's other films and public statements, there are good reasons to doubt that it's a straight factual account of what happened. Herzog has frequently stated that he's not trying to relate straight facts, but is going for a deeper truth.
In pursuit of this, he's frequently bent the facts in his other "documentaries" to achieve the narrative that he's aiming for. I vouched for the parent comment because I think it's a view that should be discussed rather than suppressed. I like his art, but equating a Herzog documentary with factual truth is likely to end badly.
I've only skimmed it (and I don't have time to read it closer today) but this looks to be a decent academic paper that explores some of the problems with Grizzly Man:
Conceiving Grizzly Man through the "Powers of the False"
...
But is Grizzly Man a documentary at all? Is it a "true" or appropriate representation of reality? Grizzly Man engages in "creative falsification" -- a cinematic concept theorized by Gilles Deleuze in which the filmmaker generates optical images which bond to virtual images (or images that evoke a people's general past, fantasies, and dreams) to reveal some representation of "truth"
https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/scope/documents/2008/june-2008/...
Fascinating paper. The primary point doesn't seem to be that Hetzog has bent any facts, but willfully presents his subjective interpretation of the world.
It is more akin to the idea that all perception, thought, meaning, and opinions operate in a realm distinct from the material world.
The following sentences after your quote make this clear.
>But is Grizzly Man a documentary at all? Is it a "true" or appropriate representation of reality? Most scholars presently writing on documentary posit that the duplication of realities through cinema is always fictional because of its use of rhetorical figures and emblematic symbolism, regardless of claims of objectivity or historical significance. As a filmmaker, Herzog shares this ideological: all documentary is false even if it conveys the myth of objectivity
> doubt that it's a straight factual account of what happened.
Maybe I'm misremembering but I don't remember this "documentary" having any narrative or facts. It's not trying to teach you anything reality, it just seems to be about 2 people perspectives about living in nature amongst bears. Again, it was a while ago since I watched it so maybe I'm not remembering accurately.