Alaskan Grizzly encounter

[BOD]

http://www.adn.com/front/story/9202402p-9118852c.html

This account reinforces the need to have a tourniquet availble as an option despite what city based first aid protocols say.

In the backcountry there are no rules

 

[john scrivy]

Just goes to show we all should know a little first aid >where ever we are you never know when ( God forbid ) you need the knowlege> hope the injured fella made a good recovery

 

[Goose]

I like the fact that the hunters avoided questions, because they were embarrased about allowing it to happen! They seem to have accepted that they were in the wrong rather than passing the responsibility to someone else.
First aid "rules" are fine when you are twenty minutes(even a couple of hours) away from an ambulance, glad they knew what to do.

 

[philaw]

I watched a movie recently (Grizzly Man) about someone called timothy treadwell, who lived with alaskan grizzlies for 13 summers before he got eaten by them. my interpretaion of him at the end was that he was 50% prophet and 50% chump, but 100% fascinating.

A lot of you guys would like it.

 

[BOD]

I have the video.

You are right - at least 50% chump and the rest idealistic and well meaning.

Since watching the footage, I've learnt that he took a long time to die - nearly 2 hours, as the grizzly started eating him from the underside up. the camera sound feature recording his screams, cries and moans it all till it ran out of tape/memory. Gives me the shivers to think out it

However much we want to be custodians or stewards of nature we must remember that its not Bambi -land out there

 

[Marts]

Here's the full account of what happened. Kind of explains why they didn't want to say anything at first.

Draw your own conclusions...

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/wildlife/bears/attacks/story/9234648p-9150179c.html

 

[philaw]

I think we're alking about different incidents, Marts. Timothy Treadwell was killed, along with his girlfriend.

Are you sure that it took him 2 hours to die, BOD? I thought it was good of them not to broadcast the sound from when they were attacked.

The documentary maker made the point that Treadwell talked of the bears as his friends, but that Grizzlies were never really your friends, seemed to think of him as a bit of a fool. What do you think? From my point of view he seems to be looking for martyrdom, but he knows very well what he's doing. He frequently talks about the danger he's in, and knows that bears from other areas could be very dangerous to him. The local bears, who he knew individually, could have been friends to him in the same way as a dog can be a friend, or simply in the sense of having some basic mutual understanding. They lived together for 13 summers, after all, and left him alone, so it's fair to assume that they saw him as another bear. In the end, he knew bears better than anyone and made his own choices, and I find him at least a little inspirational, and what he did therefore worthwhile.

 

[Marts]

I think we're alking about different incidents, Marts.

Cheers Phil. Actually though the thread was about the recent alaskan attack by a grizzly on hunters. It was you who changed the topic in your first post to the subject of Grizzly Man.

Timothy Treadwell and Werner Herzog's film 'Grizzly Man' has been discussed on this forum in the past and can be found, for instance...

http://www.bushcraftuk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12874&highlight=grizzly

 

[philaw]

Cheers Phil. Actually though the thread was about the recent alaskan attack by a grizzly on hunters. It was you who changed the topic in your first post to the subject of Grizzly Man.

Sorry Marts, but you make it sound like I hijacked the thread by making a point about a similar incident and reccommending a very interesting film. How on earth would I know that there had already been posts on the topic, and so what if there had? If you're going to get tetchy about bad manners, then having a dig at someone for joining in with a supposedly public thread is hardly top-notch, is it?

The way that you followed on from me and BOD made it look like you had followed on the same point instead of going back without making it clear. I can't be the only one that views the threads in 'linear' mode and coudn't tell who you were replying to.

 

[alco141]

when you hunt dangerous game sometimes it is hard to tell who is the hunter and who is the hunted. following a wounded animal into the heavy brush found along the rivers in alaska is very dangerous. even when the animal has been wounded multiple times. even with three rifles in the hunting party there is still danger in hunting the bears. there are some pretty horrific stories about bears in the west and alaska from trappers and mountainmen. i dont see where they did not want to talk about their ordeal? the mayor of the town was the one who did not want to speak for the hunters, he was not in the hunting party, he refered the questions about the hut to the hunters..

i have spent some time in alaska and you are not at the top of the food chain once you leave the city.

alex

 

[Carcajou Garou]

Alex your so very right, I also have spent time in the Alaska and the west and when out and about with the Grizz there is always danger, nature offers no safe passage. As for the other being reluctant to elaborate...maybe..whatever they say, will be misconstrued by someone with a point to prove.