Talk:Bear danger

Horribilis Article

This article does a real disservice to readers and in its effect is actively harmful.

There is a vast difference in the degree of danger posed by black bears vs. polar bears & etc., which is barely mentioned and generally ignored.

In the real world, reacting to all bear species in the same manner would result in deeply irrational human behavior. 35.22.82.113 (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

If you actually read the article you would see that such distinctions are made pretty clear. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The first paragraph after Dealing with bear encounters deals with two different species. The source for the first sentence is from Denali, and refers primarily to grizzly bears. The second sentence (with two sources) is all from California, and of course refers only to black bears. Everything I've seen in the general literature is that the two species should be treated differently. Kortoso (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

That's true, and I would like to see this article expanded to include other species. The dangers of living around polar bears are quite different than black or brown. The only advice I've ever gotten on the subject is that if you are not carrying a very-high caliber weapon or have a nice sturdy wall between you and the bear, you should probably make peace with the fact that you are about to die. Unlike other bears, polar bears don't bluff, and they are near impossible to frighten. They know they are the meanest thing that walks where they live and they act appropriately. And as for other bears, such as sloth bears or spectacled bears, I have no clue how they may differ behaviorally from North American or European bears. This article would certainly benefit from expansion to cover these other species. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

According to the Bears article, "Bears are found in the continents of North America, South America, Europe, and Asia."

This article states, "Bear danger is a threat to many hikers and campers in the United States who visit national parks that are still relatively untouched by humans and have bears in them."

Could someone explain in this article why bear danger is not a threat to hikers and campers in other parts of the world?

Is the term 'bear danger' real, perhaps used by risk management types, or did this user make it up? Paddling bear (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe the definition of Bear danger needs to be expanded. Johan Lont (talk) 13:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• I couldn't agree with you more, will work on it. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Better now, but could still use some lovin' Beeblebrox (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Admittedly, It is still North America-centric, the book I have on bear attacks is focused on North American bears, I have no idea what the dangers of the sun bear or the panda bear might be. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

For the time being, the title of this article can become "Bear danger in North America" and deal with grizzlies and black bears only. Kortoso (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal from Bear attacks

Looking to categorize an article on bear attacks that someone wrote recently, I discovered this bear danger article under Category:Animal attacks. I think they cover the same material and should be merged. Comments? —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Seems a good idea to me, they certainly cover the same territory. Maybe Bear attack should be redirected here as well? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• There's some problems over there that will need fixing up, I think it's a little ridiculous to say you need a machine gun or a rocket launcher to kill a bear, one of these to the head or one of these in any critical spot will do it, or any large hunting rifle. I personally know someone who killed a black bear that was in his chickens with a pump action 12-gauge. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Definitely good candidates for merging together. PKT(alk) 15:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've reconsidered my position on this. While they two articles cover similar territory, this article is about the everyday dangers of living around bears, the other article is only about when they attack. Since the merger hasn't been done and there's been no further comment for over two months, I'm going to remove the tags. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • This referent differs from the other to the extent that it also covers property damage, and perhaps a greater emphasis on prevention. If so, changes should be made to this article so that it deals with the referent of the article bear attack only to the appropriate extent and thereafter sends the reader to that article for more detailed information, which may involve some merging. Unless there's a better idea, I plan to re-list it as soon as appropriate. Chrisrus (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Bear attack deals with many species in different countries. I'd support moving this article to Bear attach under the North American species. Kortoso (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent additions to this article

I'm concerned that recent edits have caused this article to wander away from it's intended purpose. This article is about the day to day issues of living around bears. The article on Bear attacks is about actual attacks by bears. I think a lot of this new content belongs over there. Also, any mention of non-Asian black bears has been removed. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You removed mention of Asian bears, or all non-Asian bears? An earlier thread discussed trying to make this more inclusive of other species, and less North American-centric.

I don't understand the first line under Fire arms, "When a bear attacks humans or becomes habituated to human food, it becomes a threat to people, its habitat, and itself..." How can a bear become a threat to itself or it's habitat? It's not threatening itself, although humans might kill it due to actions we won't tolerate. If I can figure out a better wording, I'll edit it. Paddling bear (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I took that to mean that it becomes a threat to itself in that it has put itself in danger of being killed by humans, but your right that it could be more clear. The part I don't get at all is how it becomes a danger to it's habitat, that should probably go. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, that sounds like what a ranger would tell you before he puts the bear down. Let's not mince words here. Bears are put down when, as, and if they become threats to human life. Kortoso (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the article was edited to remove that language several years ago, this discussion is actually from six years back. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

very US-centric

I'm surprised to see no Cdn content here - BC is full of bears. We don't use the phrase 'bear danger' though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.236.6 (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bear danger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130202122940/http://www.nps.gov/dena/planyourvisit/bearsafety.htm to http://www.nps.gov/dena/planyourvisit/bearsafety.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080424002603/http://www.adn.com:80/bearattacks/story/381252.html to http://www.adn.com/bearattacks/story/381252.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)