Polar bear killed Canadian man protecting his children

 

A father died protecting his children in a rare polar bear attack in Canada's northernmost territory of Nunavut.

 

Aaron Gibbons, 31, was on Sentry Island, a popular fishing and hunting spot on the west coast of Hudson Bay, when he encountered the bear on 3 July.

 

A relative said he "died a hero", telling his daughters to run while he put himself between them and the bear. The children were unharmed, but Mr Gibbons died in the attack. Another adult later shot and killed the bear.

 

Full story: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44720199

 

-- © Copyright BBC 2018-07-05

Cue the rapid attribution of this tragic event to 'global warming', and hence to industrial activity, then capitalism in general and finally the 'Western male patriarchy', all of which need to be destroyed in order to save the planet, according to the SJW types.

 

56 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Cue the rapid attribution of this tragic event to 'global warming', and hence to industrial activity, then capitalism in general and finally the 'Western male patriarchy', all of which need to be destroyed in order to save the planet, according to the SJW types.

 

Obsessed much?

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Obsessed much?

That should have been written in crayon.

1 minute ago, RickBradford said:

That should have been written in crayon.

You have trouble reading typeface?

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

You have trouble reading typeface?

Not as much as you, apparently.

4 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

That should have been written in crayon.

 

Better than soaking his keyboard in dribble.

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

Cue the rapid attribution of this tragic event to 'global warming', and hence to industrial activity, then capitalism in general and finally the 'Western male patriarchy', all of which need to be destroyed in order to save the planet, according to the SJW types.

 

The reason for this is simple. 

 

Back in the 70's many pinko lefty types decided that the culling/killing of polar bears was cruel and senseless as these cuddly animals that would never hurt anyone were facing extinction. Therefore a world protection order was put on them as an endangered species, what else could we do with the marketing star of foxes glacier mints and R Whites lemonade.

 

FACT: there were 5000 polar Bears in the 70's, now there are over 25 000 of the feckers.  Polar Bears need territory, that territory contains food and contrary to popular beliefs the amount of food per square kilometer up at the pole is not that much, even during the seal pupping season. The polar bears have therefore migrated and are now a common site in mainland Alaska and Canada, whereas before only bears of the brown and black type were ever seen. The polar bears are establishing their own territory as is their genetic drive and there are so many of them, they are spilling into many habitats populated by humans.

 

The Inuits (that is an Eskimo for Trump supporters) had a handle on all this. They killed the Polar Bears for food, warmth, clothing. They took what they needed and no more. The population of the Polar Bear had always been sustainable at around 5000, but now taking away their main predator for the last 10 000 years - man, they have been busy procreating and on the increase. The polar bears now in general live a desperate life with no food and endless fights for territory. Man has yet again screwed up the balance by allowing supposedly well meaning individuals who have never seen an animal in the wild (other than on "Planet Earth" with David Attenborough), to impose on hunting habits that had kept the balance of the ecosystem in check for thousands of years. Before, numbers were smaller and the bears were much healthier, now they encroach on human habitats and are much hungrier and much grumpier and children are a prime time snack target.

 

A solution would be to send Trump Jr and Eric up there and let them go shooting unarmed animals as much as they like, because unlike Giraffes, these critters can fight back. We just need to get rid of around 20 000 to keep the polar bear 'Polar" rather than becoming a White North American Bear.

Edited July 5, 20188 yr by Andaman Al

Troll posts and the replies have been removed.

 

Trolls posts commenting on moderation have been removed as well as the replies. 

5 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

FACT: there were 5000 polar Bears in the 70's, now there are over 25 000

Apart from the fact that I read that the polar bears' population minimum was "a low of about 12,000 in the late 1960s", you should compare with the population before man started encroaching significantly on their natural environment. Say, before 17th century.

Sentry Island, now "a popular spot for fishing and hunting", was not inhabited until a short time ago - short on the scale of polar bear presence in the arctic.

 

"now they encroach on human habitats" is an interesting statement. By the same logic, why not get rid of all animal species. Think of elephants here in Thailand.

 

 

27 minutes ago, arithai12 said:

"now they encroach on human habitats" is an interesting statement. By the same logic, why not get rid of all animal species.

Well i think as you seem to be in to using logic....because not all animal species want to eat your children.

 

you also say:

 

Quote

Apart from the fact that I read that the polar bears' population minimum was "a low of about 12,000 in the late 1960s", you should compare with the population before man started encroaching significantly on their natural environment. Say, before 17th century.

Well the numbers were off the top of my head from years ago, but this is what Wiki says right now.

Quote

Warnings about the future of the polar bear are often contrasted with the fact that worldwide population estimates have increased over the past 50 years and are relatively stable today.^[200][201] Some estimates of the global population are around 5,000 to 10,000 in the early 1970s;^[202] other estimates were 20,000 to 40,000 during the 1980s.^[47][61] Current estimates put the global population at between 20,000 and 25,000^[41] or 22,000 and 31,000.^[2]

As for checking numbers in the 17th century, I simply don't have time, but if you do then that would be most interesting.

Edited July 5, 20188 yr by Andaman Al

8 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

because not all animal species want to eat your children.

Doesn't make any difference to humans. We'll exterminate any that are not domesticated and inconveniently occupy anywhere we want to live, or in this case kill animals for "sport". Seems that some animals have the audacity to return the favour.

9 hours ago, arithai12 said:

Apart from the fact that I read that the polar bears' population minimum was "a low of about 12,000 in the late 1960s", you should compare with the population before man started encroaching significantly on their natural environment. Say, before 17th century.

Sentry Island, now "a popular spot for fishing and hunting", was not inhabited until a short time ago - short on the scale of polar bear presence in the arctic.

 

"now they encroach on human habitats" is an interesting statement. By the same logic, why not get rid of all animal species. Think of elephants here in Thailand.

 

 

They won't get rid of elephants as long as they can exploit them to make money. The day they no longer do so, they will be "rid of". If people could interact with polar bears like they do elephants, their future would be secure as a money making venture.

Edited July 6, 20188 yr by thaibeachlovers

And just for some balance on how savage a Polar Bear can be.

Daniel boone was a man...a big man but the bear was bigger so he ran

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Doesn't make any difference to humans. We'll exterminate any that are not domesticated and inconveniently occupy anywhere we want to live, or in this case kill animals for "sport". Seems that some animals have the audacity to return the favour.

Proof that some people argue just for the sake of it.

 

What is the problem here? Family on shore, Bear attacks children, Father saves Children, Bear Eats Father, Kids call rescue on radio, Rescuers come and shoot bear eating Father. What i wrong? This is not the mass extermination of a species (that is already running riot due to protection orders). What would you have done? Get the kids safe then tell the bear to finish up the remains of the Father and give him a bone and a cuddly toy?

20 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Cue the rapid attribution of this tragic event to 'global warming', and hence to industrial activity, then capitalism in general and finally the 'Western male patriarchy', all of which need to be destroyed in order to save the planet, according to the SJW types.

 

No room for K Thaksin (or the kitchen sink) in that lineup? 

1 hour ago, Andaman Al said:

Proof that some people argue just for the sake of it.

 

What is the problem here? Family on shore, Bear attacks children, Father saves Children, Bear Eats Father, Kids call rescue on radio, Rescuers come and shoot bear eating Father. What i wrong? This is not the mass extermination of a species (that is already running riot due to protection orders). What would you have done? Get the kids safe then tell the bear to finish up the remains of the Father and give him a bone and a cuddly toy?

Aaron Gibbons, 31, was on Sentry Island, a popular fishing and hunting spot on the west coast of Hudson Bay, when he encountered the bear on 3 July. 

Why do humans think they have some sort of "right" to kill other species, but it's not OK for other species to reciprocate? It's not like the bear attacked the guy in his back yard. The guy was on the bear's territory.

Edited July 6, 20188 yr by thaibeachlovers

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Aaron Gibbons, 31, was on Sentry Island, a popular fishing and hunting spot on the west coast of Hudson Bay, when he encountered the bear on 3 July. 

OK for humans to kill other species for "sport", but not OK for other species to do the same to humans, even if it's just for something to eat?

I think only a small proportion of humans kill animals for sport, and that is not ok, neither is it acceptable for animals to eat humans for food, but did you really need telling that?

2 minutes ago, vogie said:

I think only a small proportion of humans kill animals for sport, and that is not ok, neither is it acceptable for animals to eat humans for food, but did you really need telling that?

I was responding to another poster that was criticising me, and pointing out the irony of someone in a hunting area being hunted.

No I don't think "sport" hunting is acceptable for a supposedly civilised species, and I don't voluntarily go into areas where the animals are likely to eat me.

9 minutes ago, vogie said:

I think only a small proportion of humans kill animals for sport, and that is not ok, neither is it acceptable for animals to eat humans for food, but did you really need telling that?

Happy to eat bear meat, and the skin makes a nice rug.

There you go, removed the 'sport' bit you didn't like.

17 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Aaron Gibbons, 31, was on Sentry Island, a popular fishing and hunting spot on the west coast of Hudson Bay, when he encountered the bear on 3 July. 

Why do humans think they have some sort of "right" to kill other species, but it's not OK for other species to reciprocate? It's not like the bear attacked the guy in his back yard. The guy was on the bear's territory.

Agreed, the guy was a fool for not taking a really BIG gun.

Risking your children is inexcusable.

Edited July 6, 20188 yr by BritManToo

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I was responding to another poster that was criticising me, and pointing out the irony of someone in a hunting area being hunted.

No I don't think "sport" hunting is acceptable for a supposedly civilised species, and I don't voluntarily go into areas where the animals are likely to eat me.

I notice you have edited the post I responded to, infact its a different reply.

3 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Happy to eat bear meat, and the skin makes a nice rug.

There you go, removed the 'sport' bit you didn't like.

Never eaten bear meat, and never had bearskin rug, but thanks for the sarcastic reply.

2 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Happy to eat bear meat, and the skin makes a nice rug.

There you go, removed the 'sport' bit you didn't like.

I don't think people go there to hunt polar bears as polar bears can fight back, but as long as people actually eat what they kill, I don't have a problem with that. Just killing for the sake of killing, I do.

 

3 minutes ago, vogie said:

I notice you have edited the post I responded to, infact its a different reply.

I edited it because the first post was too personal to the poster that was criticizing me. I have to remind myself to not make things personal, if I can.

17 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

but as long as people actually eat what they kill, I don't have a problem with that. Just killing for the sake of killing, I do.

 

Well clearly. The bear was eating the man so you seem to be giving the bear a pass. If the man would have been armed in order to protect his children you never would have read the story "Man shoots Polar Bear on remote island". I guess if a King Cobra comes crawling into your bed with you and your missus you will tell her not to panic and blame the snake, "it lives here darling, just give it some food and it will snuggle up next to us and sleep in perfect man and beast harmony. We will be at one with nature"

 

 

14 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 I have to remind myself to not make things personal, if I can.

Bejeezus, we have a pre-happy hour Friday epiphany upon us.

43 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Aaron Gibbons, 31, was on Sentry Island, a popular fishing and hunting spot on the west coast of Hudson Bay, when he encountered the bear on 3 July. 

Why do humans think they have some sort of "right" to kill other species, but it's not OK for other species to reciprocate? It's not like the bear attacked the guy in his back yard. The guy was on the bear's territory.

He didn't have a gun, he wasn't hunting bears. They were out exploring the coast and fishing. Is it a crime against the animal kingdom to take the kids fishing now? Do you eat bacon, pork, beef steak and chicken? if so would it be acceptable for you for packs of wild pigs to roam the streets eating kids while you say "but we eat pork so it's only fair". The sun is almost below the yardarm, go for a beer for gawds sake.

54 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

He didn't have a gun, he wasn't hunting bears. They were out exploring the coast and fishing. Is it a crime against the animal kingdom to take the kids fishing now? Do you eat bacon, pork, beef steak and chicken? if so would it be acceptable for you for packs of wild pigs to roam the streets eating kids while you say "but we eat pork so it's only fair". The sun is almost below the yardarm, go for a beer for gawds sake.

It's stupid to go into any NA woods without a big gun, there's lots of bears around.

Not a case of humans hunting bears, but to protect yourself from bears hunting you.