Recently, a 22 year old man was killed by a black bear while
hiking with friends in New Jersey. There was an article in Field and Stream that states a group of 5 hikers started to run when
they noticed a bear was following them.
When the hikers reconvened, they realized one was missing. Darsh Patel had separated from the group and
was found dead 2 hours later by search and rescue 30 yards from the 299 pound bear. I received this information via email and was intrigued by the
title. The part that was fallacious was that the article stated "a police office euthanized the animal with two shots from a shotgun." The meaning of euthanized is to put to death humanely. Is blasting it with a shotgun humane?
Animal rights is a constant topic in the media, facebook and online. There are however extremes. Currently there is a youtube video made by a woman named Kelly Atlas. She entered a restaurant and started a monologue about how someone had "harmed her little girl." In the end you were able to ascertain that it was actually a chicken. She raved on and on about how she wanted to save her and her sisters. The video went viral and has been to topic of several newscasts. I realize people love their pets but this seems fallacious.
As I looked further clarity in the bear attack article, there were several items that got me thinking. The first being the fact that the body was found being circled around by the bear as if he was protecting it or protecting his food source. The bear refused to move even when search and rescue tried tactics that had been successful in past encounters. I believe this is cogent. I am sorry a man lost his life, but I don't believe we respected the bear's right to protect his territory and search for food.
Next, according the US News, was the fact that this season there was a limited supply of berries and acorns. Kelcey Burguess, a black bear project leader at state Division of Fish and Wildlife, has said that a necropsy would reveal whether the bear had diseases. He said, "the indication " was the bear saw Patel as food, perhaps because , he added, "acorns, hickory nuts, black walnuts" throughout the state have been in low supply recently. This information and caution had not been passed on to the many hikers that are frequently in the area. To assume the hikers would know there was increased danger is fallacious.
The report in Field and Stream states that if after they complete the testing and it proves this bear killed Patel, it will be the first bear fatality in 150 years. Is the bear guilty without proof and the fate is punishable by death? I am truly sorry for the loss of a young man just out doing what appeared to be enjoying nature. But, I also feel for the bear who was perhaps just trying to survive. Several articles I read stated that people who live in the area are cautious and carry the appropriate equipment like bear spray.
After attending class on Tuesday, I am much more aware of the “trolling” comments and was appalled by several. As I read some, I could honestly envision the exact stereotype we spoke about in class. Could I be generalizing??
Animal rights is a constant topic in the media, facebook and online. There are however extremes. Currently there is a youtube video made by a woman named Kelly Atlas. She entered a restaurant and started a monologue about how someone had "harmed her little girl." In the end you were able to ascertain that it was actually a chicken. She raved on and on about how she wanted to save her and her sisters. The video went viral and has been to topic of several newscasts. I realize people love their pets but this seems fallacious.
As I looked further clarity in the bear attack article, there were several items that got me thinking. The first being the fact that the body was found being circled around by the bear as if he was protecting it or protecting his food source. The bear refused to move even when search and rescue tried tactics that had been successful in past encounters. I believe this is cogent. I am sorry a man lost his life, but I don't believe we respected the bear's right to protect his territory and search for food.
Next, according the US News, was the fact that this season there was a limited supply of berries and acorns. Kelcey Burguess, a black bear project leader at state Division of Fish and Wildlife, has said that a necropsy would reveal whether the bear had diseases. He said, "the indication " was the bear saw Patel as food, perhaps because , he added, "acorns, hickory nuts, black walnuts" throughout the state have been in low supply recently. This information and caution had not been passed on to the many hikers that are frequently in the area. To assume the hikers would know there was increased danger is fallacious.
The report in Field and Stream states that if after they complete the testing and it proves this bear killed Patel, it will be the first bear fatality in 150 years. Is the bear guilty without proof and the fate is punishable by death? I am truly sorry for the loss of a young man just out doing what appeared to be enjoying nature. But, I also feel for the bear who was perhaps just trying to survive. Several articles I read stated that people who live in the area are cautious and carry the appropriate equipment like bear spray.
After attending class on Tuesday, I am much more aware of the “trolling” comments and was appalled by several. As I read some, I could honestly envision the exact stereotype we spoke about in class. Could I be generalizing??
What an interesting story! I agree that they probably could have tranquilized the bear and done some further investigating to find out why the bear attacked the hikers. It is also unfortunate that "trolling" comments had to be made at all. The family of the hiker was probably already grieving the loss of Darsh and reading some of the "trolling" comments probably added insult to injury.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this story is a bit fallacious because it leaves out so much important information to warrant a valid claim. Your claim about the bear needing to be tranquilized instead of being shot may also not be valid though for the same lack of evidence reasoning that the original argument had. They should have told about the protocol from the agency in charge which justified the killing of the bear. This could have ruled out your unnecessary killing of the bear idea.
ReplyDeleteI am still annoyed that the other person killed by a bear in Wyoming has been listed as living in Virgin, Utah. I am from there and there has been no person by that name that has lived there according to all the records in town. It just shows how bad information can seem right and then be spread around easily without anyone questioning the facts. Great Job. Keep up the good work.
I say shoot... it's a bear, and that's what bears do when given the chance. A human life is too precious to risk another being taken by the bear again..
ReplyDelete